


= y % '* 


















... 






C 






^ 










'O. * 







3> ^ 



C^ ' 

























;*>♦ \ 












b w -v^ 









v 






4- ^ 
























^ v* 






' * 



% > %' 




/ V 



o o N 



v* . , . „ 



























,v 






^ V* 1 
















^ 









0° , 



„•* -c 



■ % 



,0o 







- 



> 



W* : 







V 

= - 



<r '/ / s s \ A °* y o « * ■*■ ^o 










O. 



^ 













A REPLY 



COBBETT'S 



u ifoitfrg of i\t Drutesimti iUforwaitmt 



IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.' 



COMPILED AND EDITED BY 



CHARLES HASTINGS COLLETTE. 



,! Let me speak, sir, 
For Heaven now bids me ; and the words I utter 
* * * * they'll find them truth." 

Henry VIII., Act V. Scene IV. 



LONDON : 
S. W. PARTRIDGE & CO., 9, PATERNOSTER ROW. 



MDCCCLXIX. 
(All nights reserved.) 






u There are many very worthy people who, judging too much 
from their own hearts, haye not been able to work themselves into 
a belief that other men should be so totally void of all sense and 
moral feeling as coolly to put upon paper, in the most serious 
and solemn manner, and to send forth as acknowledged truths, 
that which they know to be utterly false. To such worthy persons 
it seems to be a libel upon human nature to suppose that such 
black-hearted villany can be in existence. They now see that this 
is really the case." 

Cobbett's " Political Register," vol. xxxi, p. 628. 



LONDON : 

KELLY & CO., PRINTERS, 

GATE STREET, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, TF.C. 



PBEFACE. 

The re-issue of Mr. Cobbett's book, called " A History 

OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION IN ENGLAND AND 

Ireland/' in an unprecedentedly cheap form, and its ex- 
tensive and forced circulation at the present day by 
Romanists, has necessitated a reply, in order to counteract 
the mischief that is being thereby effected. I have ventured 
to respond to the call ; and in doing so, I have freely availed 
myself of the labours of others. 

I do not propose to give a categorical reply to each 
paragraph : the task would be tedious. I have divided 
the subject into the same general heads as adopted by 
Mr. Cobbett, stating the tenor of his observations, and 
then the true history embraced under the respective 
periods. By thus popularising the subjects as " Histo- 
rical Sketches," I hope to interest the reader, and at 
the same time to counteract the effect produced by the 
circulation of the most untruthful book, passing under the 
name of " A History," which has ever emanated from 
the British press. As to the amount of low, vulgar, viru- 
lent abuse which forms the leading feature of the work, 
Mr. Cobbett's book has not its parallel in literature. 

" His words are realities, his principles fictions."— Bulwer. 

Mr. Cobbett complained, in Letter XII., that all per- 
sons who had hitherto published what they called answers 
to his "History," dwelt upon what their authors assert 
to be errors of the [Roman] Catholic Religion, without 
attempting to reply to his line of argument. I have not 
followed this example, having restricted my remarks to 
historical facts. 

C. H. COLLETTE. 

*** Each paragraph of Mr. Cobbett's booh is numbered in regular 
succession ; the references to the passages quoted or referred to in this reply 
are indicated by corresponding numbers. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER. TAGE. 

I. Introductory Chapter .... 1 
II. The Introduction of Christianity into England, 
and the Alleged Supremacy of the Bishop 
of Bome — His Usurpation in England, and 
Final Overthrow by Henry VIII. . . 33 

III. Henry VIII. . . . . .81 

IV. The Dissolution of the Monasteries . .114 
V. Edward VI. .... . 131 

VI. Mary . . . . . . 150 

VII. Elizabeth . . . . . .171 

VIII. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew. . .217 

IX. A Chapter on Ireland .... 238 

X. The Beformers . . . . '261 

Luther ..... 262 

Zuinglius — Beza — Melancthon . . . 283 

Calvin. . . . . .285 

Cranmer . . . . . . 288 

Hooper ... . . 302 

Bidley . . . . . . 303 

Latimer ..... 304 

XL From the Accession of James I. to William III. 307 
XII. Conclusion . . . . . . 329 



A REPLY 

TO 

COBBETT'S HISTORY 

OP THE 

REFORMATION. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

When a book is placed in our hands purporting to be a history of 
political, social, or religious events, especially such as are connected 
■with our own country, we naturally inquire as to the character and 
antecedents of the author ; on what authority or evidence his state- 
ments are proposed for acceptance ; and the manner in which the 
subject is placed before us. 

The book passing by the name of " A History of the Protestant 
Reformation," by the late Mr. William Cobbett, has been recently 
reprinted by Roman Catholics in an exceptionally cheap form, and 
most industriously and extensively circulated by them. The channel 
through which we receive this reprint obviously necessitates the 
preliminary inquiries suggested. The work is proposed for 
acceptance on the alleged fact that its author was a Protestant, and 
a member of the Church of England ; and that, therefore, his 
motives at least cannot be questioned, and his statements ought to 
be accepted as against members of his own communion. The pro- 
position is plausible, but the alleged fact of his being, at the time 
he wrote the work in question, either a member of the Church of 
England, or even a Protestant, is most questionable. At any rate, 
if startling assertions, purporting to be historical facts, contrary to 
all our preconceived notions of the events brought under review, are 
required to be accepted, they should be temperately advanced, and 
corroborated by unimpeachable evidence ; whereas, when we examine 

B 



this book, we find a series of bold and dogmatic assertions, clothed 
in language of the coarsest and most vituperative character, without 
one single indication throughout that Mr. Cobbett is expressing 
any other than his own private opinions. But the matter does not 
rest here. He is not contented with the dogmatic expression of his 
own opinions, but he unceremoniously sets down all other writers 
differing from himself as hypocrites or liars. 

Our great historian, Hume, Mr. Cobbett describes as a "calum- 
niator of Catholic institutions ;" a this "lying historian." 5 — 
The " falsehoods of Hume's descriptions." c The " monstrous lies 
of Hume." d The "unfeeling and malignant Hume." e The 
"false and malignant and selfish Hume." f " The malignity of 
this liar exceeded his cunning." e The " malignant liar, Hume." h 
The " lying book, which the Scotch call our history." » The 
" malignant lies of Hume." k " Back then ; down, thou malignant 
liar, and tell the devil that the Protestant Bishop Tanner has sent 
thee." * These extracts (samples merely of many similar passages) 
sufficiently indicate the character and temper of the writer. To 
place Mr. Cobbett in the rank of an historian is simply ridiculous. 
His strong passions and prejudices ; his inability to restrain them ; 
his inconsistency with himself; his changeableness of principle 
and opinion ; render it totally impossible for him either to write of 
or judge any history. And this is the man who ventures to pass 
a censure on England's greatest historian. 

Of Burnet, the great Protestant historian and bishop, whose 
History procured him an honour never before or since paid to any 
writer — the thanks of both Houses of Parliament, with a desire 
that he would prosecute the undertaking, and complete his valuable 
work, " The History of the Reformation in England," a work 
which has been deemed worthy to be translated into most 
European languages — of Burnet and his History, Mr. Cobbett 
speaks, as " That calculating, cold-blooded, brazen Burnet." m 
" The vile pen of Burnet." n " The malignity of Burnet." " Our 
lying Protestant historian." P "Vile calumniator." °. "A mon- 
strously lying historian." r " His History of the Reformation," he 
says, " is a mass of the most base falsehoods and misrepresentations 

a 211. b 116. c 218. d 451. e 134, 161, 236, 246. * 149. 

e 130. * 135. » 179. k 136. » 134. m 96. n 83. 

°103. P346. 1248. r 405. 



that ever were put on paper." a Burnet establishes every statement 
by documents taken from our authentic records, which he prints in 
extenso ; whereas Mr. Cobbett, on the other hand, has not verified 
one single assertion by a single reference, his entire " History " 
resting on his own sole authority and dictum ! 

Foxe, the Martyrologist, he calls the "lying Foxe;" b "vile 
calumniator; " c "the author of the lying Book of Martyrs; " d 
and he declares him to have a "total disregard of truth." e f 

The following is a sample of the method of conveying the very 
grossest slander, and for which there is not the remotest reliable 
evidence, and which professedly emanated from a Jesuit : — " It is 
positively asserted that Anne Boleyn was the King's daughter; 
now, though I believe this fact, I do not give it as a thing the 
truth of which is undeniable — I believe it, but I do not give it, as I 
do the other facts that I state, as what is undeniably true." s The 
idea of a man like Mr. Cobbett being scrupulous as to an assertion 
being founded on an ascertained fact ! Throughout his entire 
History he does not, as I have said, give one single authority for 
his other assertions, and he requires us to receive these as undeniable 
truths ; but in this piece of choice calumny, he does not request 
us to believe the slander, although he affects in this instance to 
give an authority to support it, which he does not fail to tell us is 
sufficient to convince him of its truth ! This is the method he 
adopts to pass current a notorious falsehood by an affectation of 
candour, or rather a hesitation to impose on us as an historical fact 
that which he himself pretends to believe as true, so that we may 
accept the other statements as undeniably true. 

a 405. b 65. 248. a 221. e 248. 

f " Invariable accuracy is not to be expected in any historical work of 
suck extent ; but it may be truly said of England's venerable martyrologist, 
that his relations are more than ordinarily worthy of reliance. His principal 
object being, indeed, to leave behind him a vast mass of authentic informa- 
tion relating to those miserable times which it had been his lot to witness, 
he printed a vast mass of original letters, records of judicial processes, and 
other documentary evidence. The result of this judicious policy was a work 
which has highly gratified the friends of Protestantism, and successfully 
defied its enemies. Numerous attacks have been levelled at the honest 
chronicler of Romish intolerance, but they have ever fallen harmless from 
the assailant's hand." — Soames' " History of the Reformation," vol. iv. 
p. 721. London, 1826. 

*67. 

B 2 



What would Mr. Cobbett's patrons say if we were to adopt the 
same method of conveying an accusation against him ? " It is posi- 
tively asserted that a Jesuit wrote the book (now under considera- 
tion), and that Mr. Cobbett put his name to it. a I believe it, 
but I do not give it, as I do the other facts that I state, as what is 
undeniably true." Indeed, the work has throughout the appearance 
of being dictated by a Jesuit, but written with the pen of a Cobbett. 

Mr. Cobbett was the son of a small farmer, who drove a 
plough at twopence a day. b He spent his early days in the 
country. He ran away from his home and enlisted as a 
soldier in 1784, rose to the rank of sergeant-major, and got 
his discharge in 1791. He then left for America, and became 
a political writer, adopting violent anti-republican sentiments. 
He was there prosecuted for a libel, which necessitated his return 
to England in a.d. 1800. Here he started a political journal, 
" The Porcupine," of Tory principles. He changed his political 
creed, and with it the title of his paper, which he afterwards called 
" The Register." He was now a Radical. His Radical propensi- 
ties subjected him to a prosecution for a libel by the Government. 
He was fined and imprisoned. Becoming involved in his pe- 
cuniary affairs, he evaded his creditors by going back to America. 
Here he became farmer, but his active and restless mind could 
not brook inaction, so he returned to England, and brought with 
him a box, containing, as he pretended, the bones of Tom Paine, 
as relics and token of his veneration for this notorious infidel. 
It was, however, currently reported at the time, that the box 
contained nothing more than the old bones of a nigger, which 
Mr. Cobbett now desired, not unlike the fashion adopted with 
modern Roman relic-mongers, to palm off for the genuine article 
belonging to the dead infidel. 

Mr. Cobbett's most modern biographer, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, 
G.C.B., in his " Historical Characters," c refers to this event in 
the following terms : — 

" He (Cobbett) was essentially an actor, and disposed to study 

a Stephens' " Spirit of the Church of Rome," 2nd edition, 1843, p. 245. 
b "Life of William Cobbett;" written by Himself, p. 4, 2nd edition, 
London, 1809. 
« Vol. ii. pp. 159-161. London, 13C8. 



the dramatic in all his proceedings. To slink back unperceived 
to his old haunts and recommence quietly his old habits, would 
neither suit his tastes, nor, as he thought, his interests. It was 
necessary that his return should be a sensation. Too vain and 
too quarrelsome to pay court to any one, he through life made 
friends by making enemies. His plan now was to raise a howl 
against the returning exile as an atheist and a demagogue 
amongst one portion of society, not doubting that, in such case, 
he would be taken up as the champion of civil and religious liberty 
by another. 

" The device he adopted for this object was disinterring, or 
saying he had disinterred, the bones of Thomas Paine, whom he 
had formerly assailed as ' the greatest disgrace of mankind,' and 
now declared to be ' the greatest enlightener of the human race,' 
and carrying these bones over to England as the relics of a patron 
saint, under whose auspices he was to carry on his future political 
career. 

" Now, Paine had been considered the enemy of kingly govern- 
ment and the Christian religion in his time, and had greatly 
occupied the attention of Cobbett, who had styled him ' an in- 
famous and atrocious miscreant,' but he had never been a man of 
great weight or note in our country ; many of the existing genera- 
tion scarcely knew his name, and those who did felt but a very 
vague retrospective interest in his career. In vain Cobbett 
celebrated him as ' an unflinching advocate for the curtailment 
of aristocratic al power,' and 'the boldest champion of popular 
rights,' In vain he gave it clearly to be understood that Paine 
did not believe a word of the Old Testament or the New ; nobody, 
in spite of Cobbett's damning encomiums, would care about Paine, 
or consider a box of old bones as anything but a bad joke. So 
that, after vainly offering locks of hair or any particle of the defunct 
and exhumed atheist and republican at a low price, considering the 
value of the relics, he let the matter drop, and, rubbing his hands 
and chuckling with that peculiar sardonic smile which I well 
remember, began to treat the affair as the world did, and the 
inestimable fragments of the disinterred Quaker suddenly dis- 
appeared, and were never heard of more." 

The same biographer gives the following characteristic which 
pervaded Mr. Cobbett's writings at this time : — 



" He had a sort of itch, for bespattering with mud everything 
that was popular, and gilding everything that was odious. Mary 
Tudor was, with him, 'merciful Queen Mary;' Elizabeth, as I have 
already observed, ' Bloody Queen Bess ; ' our Navy, ' the swagger- 
ing Navy ; ' Napoleon, ' a French coxcomb ; ' Brougham, ' a talk- 
ing lawyer ; ' Canning, ' a brazen defender of corruptions ; ' and the 
disciples of Penn, ' the unbaptised buttonless blackguards.' " a 

Mr. Cobbett was a man distinguished, above all others, for the 
rapidity and unblushing effrontery with which he veered about in 
questions, both religious and political, whenever he thought his own 
worldly interests might be thereby promoted ; so that, on almost every 
important subject, two directly contrary opinions might be quoted out 
of his writings. Not the least striking are his opinions and conduct 
respecting Thomas Paine, the infidel, above referred to. In the 
third volume of his "Works, published by himself, b Mr. Cobbett thus 
speaks of Paine and his writings : — 

" As to the ' Age of Reason ' itself, it cannot be better described 
than by saying, that it is as stupid and despicable as its author. 
The wretch Paine has all his life been employed in leading fools 
astray from their duty, and, as nothing is more easy, he has often 
succeeded. His religion is exactly of a piece with his politics ; one 
inculcates the right of revolting against governments ; and the 
other, that of revolting against God. But what shall be said of 
those who, pressed by neither danger nor want, make common 
exertions to spread his infamous performances among the ignorant 
part of their countrymen, and thereby sow in their minds the seeds 
of vice, inquietude, and despair? Deists may find some apology for 
doing this; but who will dare to become the apologist of those 
booksellers who, professors of the Christian religion, throw out this 
bait of blasphemy to catch unwary customers, and, smiling at their 
simplicity, pocket the dirty pence." 

Mr. Cobbett, in 1796, published a Life of Tom Paine, c wherein 
are the following expressions as referring to that individual : — 
" Hypocritical monster." d " His notoriously bad character." e " He 
merited death — at least transportation." f " No language can 
describe the wickedness of the man."s " Hoary blasphemer." fc 

a Bulwer's "Historical Characters," pp. 180, 18G. 

b P. 289. Edit, London, 1801. 

c British Museum, press mark 10,855c, London, Svo, 1796. 

d P. 7, * P. 20. f P. 40. s P. 51. k P. 53. 



" Like Judas, he will be remembered by posterity; men will learn 
to express all that is base, malignant, treacherous, unnatural, 
and blasphemous by the single monosyllable — Paine." a 

Such was Mr. Cobbett's indignant condemnation of Paine the 
infidel, and of those who spread his writings. But Mr. Cobbett 
had his reverses in the world. He was condemned by a jury of 
his country for libel, imprisoned and fined. He suffered under 
pecuniary difficulties and fled his country. How far these events 
influenced his opinions I do not care to inquire ; but we do find him 
a few years afterwards (profiting perhaps by his acquaintance with 
his new friends, the Komanists, who have long carried on a lucra- 
tive trade in sham relics) making a pilgrimage to America, and 
(to prove to his deluded victims the sincerity of his conversion) 
bringing back with him, as we have seen, the bones of the man 
whom he had condemned in most emphatic language as a notorious 
reprobate. These bones he affected to treat with all the veneration 
with which an uninformed Eomish devotee hallows the rotten relics 
which he is taught to believe were once the bones of some favourite 
saint. This was in the year 1824, the same year in which he com- 
menced his series of tracts to which he gave the title " A History 
of the Protestant Reformation." This is the man whose book Roman 
Catholics think it decent to reprint and circulate, and quote on 
every occasion when they wish to vilify the Reformers, the Refor- 
mation, and our Church, and to deceive those who have not the 
ready means of discovering its misrepresentations. This is the 
man whom they quote as an historical authority, and not only so, but 
as a Protestant author. Protestant he certainly was not. Whether 
he died, as his professed reverence in the latter years of his life 
for Thomas Paine would lead one to suppose, a Deist or an Infidel, 
or whether he was at heart a Papist, we do not profess to know. 
Certain it is, that the Romish priests exercised a sound discretion 
in not pressing him to join their ranks openly, in which case his 
book would have been less mischievous, since they would have been 
less able to quote it as written by a Protestant. But, whatever 
religion he might profess, Protestant he was not. Instead of pro- 
testing against the errors of the Church of Rome, his great aim, as 
we shall presently see, in the book which he miscalled " The His- 
tory of the Protestant Reformation," was to depreciate the motives 

a P. 67. 



of Protestants with a virulence and vindictiveness which overreaches 
itself. He palliates the enormities of the Papists, and even patronises 
their very doctrines. True it is that he pretends to have under- 
taken " a fair and honest enquiry," a and to have " written from a 
bare love of justice," b " that he had no motive in undertaking the 
work — he could have no motive — but a sincere and disinterested 
love of justice;" nevertheless he dates his Preface on the 9th 
July, the anniversary of the day he had been sentenced, as he him- 
self reminds us, " to two years' imprisonment in a felon's gaol, 
with fine of £1,000 to the King, and at the end of the two years 
with seven years' bail, himself in £3,000 and two sureties in £1,000 
each." It was, as he himself says, on the anniversary of that day 
that he issued the work in question : — " Knowing the effects which 
in the end that manuscript must have on these parsons [referring 
to the clergy of the Church of England], and the great good it must 
do the nation ; reflecting, feeling, seeing, knowing thus, it is, that 
I, in justice to our pious, sincere, brave and wise forefathers [refer- 
ring to the Romanists of the Middle Ages], and in compassion to 
my suffering countrymen [the then Romanists, who were then 
under political disabilities], and to the children of us all, I send 
this little volume forth to the world." d It was under such circum- 
stances, influences, and feelings that Mr. Cobbett launched his 
volume, which he called, as if in irony, " A History of the Protes- 
tant Reformation." 

Mr. Cobbett took great pains to impress upon us that he was 
a Protestant and a member of the Church of England. Such ex- 
pressions as the following are freely scattered throughout his book. 
" We Protestants." e " Being as I am a Protestant of the Church 
of England." f " Born and bred a Protestant of the Church of 
England, having a wife and family professing the same faith, having 
the remains of most dearly-beloved parents lying in a Protestant 
churchyard, and trusting to conjugal or filial piety to place mine 
by their side." s " We (he says) who belong to this Protestant 
Church." h And he talks of his " Brother Protestants," l and his 
"feelings as a Protestant." k 

Notwithstanding this, he takes every occasion to use the term 
Protestant" in derision. Our bishops he calls "Protestant 



a 5. 


b 5. 


c 478. 


d Introduction, part ii. 52. 


« 2. 00. 


' 436. 


&47S. 


h 1G. * Part ii. 10. k 243, 



9 

Fathers in God." a He calls our profession of faith "the new 
religion." "The people, even in London (he says), who were 
infested with the pestiferous principles of the foreign miscreants 
that had been brought from the Continent to teach them the new 
religion;" b and in order to describe a Protestant, he takes 
Warwick, the Protector during the .reign of Edward VI. 
" This was (he says), if possible, a more zealous Protestant than 
the last Protector — that is to say, still more profligate, rapacious, 
and cruel." c " Good God! (he exclaims) what has this kingdom not 
suffered from this horrible and hypocritical cry of ' No Popery.'" d 
" Here we are, with forty sorts of Protestant religions, instead of 
the one fold in which our forefathers lived for 900 years " e — and 
so on. 

This clearly is the language of a Romanist. But, were it the 
object of this work, I might show that the differences among 
Protestants are more on Church government than on doctrine, and 
that there has been and are more real differences among members 
of the Roman communion than among us. 

In the year 1800 his orthodoxy and Church principles were 
beyond question. During the excitement caused by the French 
Revolution, Mr. Cobbett published, under the assumed name of 
"Peter Porcupine," a series of papers, in which he went to such 
extreme lengths in villifying all who uttered the slightest objection 
against the " Protestant Establishment," either in Church or State, 
that he was described by the late Mr. Wilberforce in these words : 
" Peter Porcupine is a red-hot anti- Jacobin, most abusively loyal, 
and most uncharitably orthodox." f And in the second volume 
of his Works s he extols the Church of England in these words : — 

" Convinced as I am, from the experience of America, as well 
as from history in general, that an Established Church is absolutely 
necessary to the existence of religion and morality; convinced 
also that the Church of England, whilst she is an ornament, an 
honour, and a blessing to the nation, is the principal pillar of the 

a 3S0. b220. c215. MOO. e 446. 

<" See "Life of Wilberforce," by bis Sons, vol. ii. p. 384, quoted by 
Sir L. Bulwer. 

8 London, 1801, p. 433. In bis Life, written by Himself, 2nd edition, 
London, 1809, p. 6, be says, "Our religion was tbat of tbe Church of 
England, to wbicb I have ever remained attached." 



10 

throne, I trust I snail never be base enough to decline a combat 
with her enemies ! " 

These are, indeed, brave words, but something had since crossed 
his path, for, in 1824-1827, in this so-called " History of the 
Protestant Reformation," he writes of this Church, of which he 
professed to be a member, in a most contemptuous manner. " She 
calls herself," he sneeringly says, " a Church by law established. 
She never omits that part of her title." a He calls the English 
Church " Cranmer's New Church, as by Law Established;" b " a 
new thing, imagined by a few singular opinions — established by 
German bayonets ; " c "a new religion established by law." d And 
this expression is repeated throughout the book. e He calls our 
profession of faith " a new system," f "the new religion," s " the 
new-fangled Protestant Church." h He seeks every occasion to 
bring our " Book of Common Prayer" into contempt (as he views 
it) by associating its authorship with the name of Cranmer, 
thus : — " In addition to his notorious acts of perjury, this maker 
of the Book of Common Prayer became clearly guilty of high 
treason." 1 He calls it " our Law Church Prayer Book." k 

The following are the motives he attaches to the supporters of 
our Church: — " Here we have the true cause of all the hostility 
of the Church of England Clergy towards the Catholics. Take 
away the possessions, and the hostility would cease to-morrow ; 
though there is, besides that, a wide, and, on their side, a very 
disadvantageous difference, between a married clergy and one not 
married. The former will never have an influence with the people 
anything like approaching that of the latter. There is, too, the 
well-known superiority of learning on the side of the Catholic 
clergy ; to which may be added the notorious fact, that, in fair 
controversy, the Catholics have always triumphed. Hence, the 
deep-rooted, the inflexible, the persevering and absolutely im- 
placable hostility of this established Church to the Catholics ; 
not as men, but as Catholics.' 1 '' l " The Protestant Church," he 
declares, " was established on the ruins of the Ancient Church by 
German bayonets, by fines, guillotines, and racks." m He does 
not hesitate to express his opinion that the Established Church 
should be swept away: — "It was in this reign [Edward VI.] 



L3. 


b225. 


c226. 


d442. 


e 223, 437, 439, 443, 446 


U99. 


S21. 


*>99. 


*217. 


* 21. J 36S. mS61. 



II 

in which this our present Established Church was founded, for 
though the fabric was overset by Mary, it was raised again by 
Elizabeth. Now it was that it was made. It was made, and the 
new worship along with it, by Acts of Parliament, and it now 
seems to be high time that by similar Acts it should be unmade. 
It had its very birth in division, disunion and discord, and its life 
has been worthy of its birth." a "There ought to remain no 
Church Establishment at all, but that each sect, or sort, ought to 
be left to provide for his own religious instructions ; because, as 
long as there is an Establishment, making part of the State, there 
must always be a contest going on amongst the divers sects for the 
preference of some kind or other." b 

I forbear seeking for motives ; my task is simply to record 
facts. But, nevertheless, some strong purpose must have operated 
to produce such a revulsion of feeling, such a reaction, in the 
opinions of Mr. Cobbett. I give them for what they are worth. 

But perhaps the most striking contrast is exhibited in his 
estimation of the Roman Church and her religion after he had 
made peace with the ashes of the infidel Tom Paine, — as freely 
expressed in this " History of the Protestant Reformation," — 
compared with his previously publicly expressed opinions of the 
same Church and religion. 

In this " History" he tells us that " Catholic means universal, 
and the religion which takes this epithet, was called universal, 
because all Christian people of every nation acknowledge it to be 
the only true religion," and which had been " the only Christian 
Church." c He adds, that we " cannot deny that this religion," 
which he always designates as " the Catholic religion," " was the 
only Christian religion in the world for 1,500 years after the death 
of Christ ;" de in short, "there was no other Christian church 
a 202. bPartii. 48. <= 3. d 10. 

e The Roman Church consists of the most exclusive and dogmatic sect of 
Christians existing, and, therefore, the term " Catholic " is wholly inapplic- 
able to her. An entire and unconditional submission is required of all its 
members to a certain and specific list of dogmas, the principal of which is, 
that the Pope of Home is the Supreme Bishop, and the Eoman Church 
Mother and Mistress of all Churches. And her official title is the " Apostolic 
Roman Church." Contrast this with the requirement of a member of the 
Anglican Church. He is not hound to accept as doctrine anything tvAick 
cannot be proved by, or is revealed in, Scripture, the Scriptures alone 
being the universal basis for doctrine. 



12 

known in the world, nor had any other been thought of; and 
that there could be no good reason for altering the religion of 
England from Catholic to Protestant." a If Mr. Cobbett really 
thought so himself, why did he call himself, and profess to be, 
" a Protestant" and a member of the Chnrch of England? 

He continually alludes to " our Catholic forefathers. " b 
" Can we look back (he says) to the days of our Catholic 
ancestors, can we think of their lofty tone, and of the submission 
instantly produced by their threats, without sighing, Alas ! those 
clays are never to return." " "When I consider the long, long 
triumph of calumny over the religion of those to whom we owe all 
that we possess that is great and renowned," &c. d " The religion 
under which England had been so great and so happy, for ages so 

numerous, that religion of charity and hospitality " e 

Charity, he maintains, is a peculiar attribute of the Roman 
religion, and that it is excluded from ours by the very nature of 
Protestantism : he says — 

" Accordingly, we see that it is necessarily excluded by the very 
nature of all Protestant establishments ; that is to say in reality ; 
for, the name of charity is retained by some of these establishments ; 
but the substance no where exists. The Catholic establishment 
interweaves deeds of constant and substantial charity with the faith 
itself. It makes the two inseparable. The Douay Catechism, 
which the Protestant parsons so much abuse, says, that ' the first 
fruit of the Holy Ghost is charity.' And, then, it tells us what 
charity is ; namely, * to feed the hungry, to give drink to the 
thirsty, to clothe the naked, to visit and ransom captives, to har- 
bour the harbourless, to visit the sick, to bury the dead.' Can yon 
guess, my friends, why fat Protestant parsons rail so loudly against 
this ivicked Douay Catechism?' It is in the nature of man to 
love all this. This is what ' the gates of hell will never prevail 
against.' This is what our fathers believed, and what they acted 
upon; ancTthis it was that produced in them that benevolent dis- 
position which, thank God, has not yet been wholly extirpated 
from the breasts of their descendants." " The history (he says) 
of the Church of England down to the time of the Reformation 
is a matter of deep interest to us. A mere look at it — a bare 
sketch of the principal facts, will show how false, how unjust, how 
a 25. b 29. c 454. d 478. « 341. 



13 

ungrateful those have been who haye vilified the Catholic Church, 
its Popes, its monks, and its priests." a 

He grayely tells us, " as a Protestant," that, on the accession of 
Mary, " England was once more a Catholic country. She was re- 
stored to the ' fold of Christ; ' " b but, " a babel of religions had 
been introduced by Cranmer and his crew." c He lays it down 
that there can be but one true religion. d " Two true religions, two 
true creeds, differing from each other, cannot," he says, " exist." e 
And his inference, and only inference, is, that the Roman religion is 
the only true religion. But he does not content himself with these 
generalities, for he enters into particulars. He advocates the Papal 
supremacy in this country : — " The Pope was a foreigner exercising 
spiritual power in England ; and this the hypocrites [the Reformers'] 
pretended was a degradation to the King and country." f He de- 
clares that " this so much abused Papal supremacy was a most 
salutary thing." « He declares the Church to be founded on Peter, 
who was selected by Christ to be the head of the Church, and he 
then advances the old popish arguments founded on this fallacy, 11 
and of St. Peter's supposed residence in Rome ; and that the supre- 
macy of the Bishops of Rome, as successors of Peter, " was always 
acknowledged by the Church ; that is to say, by all the Christians 
then in the world;" 1 that the Scriptures tell us the Church was 
one, and that that Church was the Church of St. Peter. k He refers 
approvingly to " confessions to priests, absolutions, indulgences, 
masses, and monasteries." 1 He elaborately defends the celibacy 
of the clergy, by all the trite arguments common to the subject 
adopted by Dr. Milner and others ; m and he laments the fact of 
" the mass being abolished, and that there was no longer to be an 
altar, but a table in its stead." n And he runs down the Protestant 
privilege of " private judgment and interpretation of Scripture." ° 
" What right," he exclaims, " had Luther to make a new religion, 
and then Calvin another new one, and Cranmer one different from 
both these, and then ' Good Bess ' to make an improvement on 
Cranmer's ? " p Such, then, being the deliberately expressed opinions 
of Mr. Cobbett, in 1824 to 1827, which were not afterwards repudiated, 
we may safely conclude that he was not a Protestant, and this will 

d 202. e 203-5-G. 

' 41. K 8.5. l 109. 

« 3G8. P 3GG. 



• 41. 


b 232. 


<246. 


■ 89. 


e95. 


h 40, 41. 




tt 12S. 


■ 207. 



14 

become more apparent as I proceed ; but before I do so, I must 
record Mr. Cobbett's opinions before be bad made acquaintance 
witb tbe bones of tbe infidel Tom Paine. How far tbat asso- 
ciation may baye affected bis views of Romanism, I cannot pretend 
to say, but bis opinions were, previously to tbat event, pretty clearly 
enunciated, as tbe following extracts will prove. On tbe subject of 
tbe Pope's supremacy, be wrote : — a 

" A very apocrypbal tradition bad made St. Peter travel to 
Rome, and bad also made tbe cbief of tbe Apostles establisb bis 
see in tbat city. Tbe Roman Bisbop, therefore, pretended to bave 
succeeded to tbe rights of Simon Peter, to wbom Jesus, in the 
Gospel, had entrusted, more particularly, the care of feeding His 
sheep. He, accordingly, assumed the pompous titles of Successor of 
St. Peter, Universal Bishop, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. It is true 
these titles were often contested with him by the Oriental Bishops, 
too proud to bow willingly under the yoke of their brother ; but, 
by degrees, through dint of artifices, intrigues, and frequently 
violences, those who enjoyed the See of Rome, ever prosecuting 
their project with ardour, succeeded in getting themselves acknow- 
ledged in the West as the beads of the Christian Church. Pliant 
and submissive, at first, to sovereigns whose power they dreaded, 
they soon mounted on their shoulders and trampled them under 
their feet, when they saw themselves certain of their power over tbe 
minds of devotees rendered frantic by superstition. Then, indeed, 
they threw off the mask, gave to nations the signal of revolt, incited 
Christians to their mutual destruction, and precipitated kings from 
their thrones. To support their pride they shed oceans of blood ; 
they made weak princes the vile sport of their passions — sometimes 
their victims, and sometimes their executioners. Sovereigns, become 
their vassals, executed, with fear and trembling, the decrees of 
Heaven pronounced against the enemies of the Holy See, which 
had created itself the arbiter of faith. In fact, these inhuman 
Pontiffs immolated to their God a thousand times more human 
victims than Paganism sacrificed to all its divinities. 

"In corroboration of what is here stated, if we look into the his- 
tory of Popes, we shall find reason to conclude that they were the 
most abandoned and flagitious of mortals, who hesitated not at the 

» Cobbett's "Register," vol. xxvi., p. 370 to 373. London, 1814. 



15 

perpetration of any crime to accomplish their purposes. Even 
Popish writers admit that no throne was ever rilled with such 
monsters of immorality as the chair of St. Peter. They are 
described as having been not only detestable in themselves, but 
as having given occasion, by their example, to the perpetration of 
all sorts of wickedness, imposture, delusion, oppression, robbery, 
tyranny, murder, and massacre. 

"Of Pope Formosus, it is said, his successor, Stephen VIL, 
considered him so horrid a criminal that he caused his body to be 
dug out of the grave and thrown into the Tiber. Stephen himself 
was regarded as equally infamous, and strangled on account of his 
crimes. Pope Sergius was so far lost to all sense of shame, that 
he openly kept both the mother and daughter as his mistresses. 
Like many other modern concubines, these holy females (for every- 
thing is esteemed holy that belongs to the Pope) regulated all 
matters of state, and governed the Church as best suited their 
interest. A successor of Sergius in the Papal throne, John XL, 
is represented to have been the fruit of this intercourse with the 
daughter, and to have taken his own mother into keeping. John 
XII. is accused of practising magic, of paying divine honours to 
Venus and Jupiter, and of having debauched females on the steps 
of the altar. He was afterwards deposed by a Council supported 
by an Emperor; but this act has been censured by some Popish 
writers, on the ground that no man on earth has a right to judge 
as to the conduct of the Pope. Boniface VII. is accused of mur- 
dering Benedict VI., in order to make way for his elevation to the 
Papal See. It is, indeed, admitted by Cardinal Benno that a 
bravo, of the name of Brazet, was kept in pay at Rome by his 
aspiring brethren, and that this holy assassin actually carried off 
seven or eight Popes by poison, at the instigation of those Cardinals 
who became impatient to fill the chair of St. Peter. Of Gregory 
II. , it is well ascertained that he deluged Germany with blood. 
When the Emperor, in the year 728, issued a decree against the 
worship of images, this pious villain caused the Vicar of the 
Empire to be put to death for giving it publicity ; and such was 
the extensive influence which the Church of Rome then possessed 
over the minds of the people, and the awe with which her mandates 
were exercised, that this murder, which in other circumstances 
might have occasioned the overthrow of the Papal power, had the 



16 

effect of causing a revolt amongst the Emperor's troops, who elected 
another master. We afterwards find, in the year 1072, another 
Emperor deposed through the cunning and knavery of the Pope, 
and obliged to cross the Alps in winter, barefooted and in a woollen 
frock, to ask pardon of his Holiness, before he would sanction his 
restoration to the Crown. This Emperor's offence was his pre- 
suming to nominate bishops, and to govern the empire conformably 
to the practice of his predecessors. A second offence induced the 
Pope to transmit the crown to another, and to absolve the subjects 
of the former Emperor from their duty and allegiance. Pope 
Gregory VII. equalled, if not surpassed, his namesake in acts of 
cruelty and insolence. Innocent III. was designated by his Catholic 
historian ' a lion in cruelty, and a blood sucker in avarice.' There 
is a decree of this Pope, by which he ' discharges the subjects of 
all heretical princes from their allegiance, and gives away their 
kingdoms to Catholic princes, in order to exterminate heretics.' 
During the reign of Henry III. of England, it was this Pope who 
plundered and oppressed the people during the greater part of that 
silly monarch's sway. Benedict XII. is accused of having purchased 
the sister of Petrarch from her family, to live with him as his 
mistress ; and it is charged against Pope Alexander VI. that, after 
debauching his own daughter, he gave her to one of his sons as a 
mistress, who transferred her to another son, with whom she after- 
wards lived as his wife. Innocent VIII. had sixteen natural 
children. Leo X. used to exclaim, l What treasure the Church has 
derived from the fable of Christ.' Of Pope Paul III., it is said, 
that he ' not only lay with his own daughter, but, to have her all to 
himself, poisoned her husband.' We all know, from our own history, 
that the arrogance of the Church of Rome had reached to an enormous 
pitch in the year 1161, for we then find our Henry II. leading the 
horse of Pope Alexander III. on the one side, and Lewis VI. of 
France on the other, while his Holiness made a triumphal entry into 
Tourey, and this at a time, too, when the Papal see was disputed 
by another Pope, who was as much revered in Spain and Germany 
as his rival. The sketch which I have attempted to give is but a 
farat one indeed of the atrocities committed by these pious, or 
rather impious, Pontiffs." 

In paragraph 41 of his " History," Mr. Cobbett writes : — 

" St. Peter died a martyr at Rome in about GO years after the 



17 

birth of Christ. But another supplied his place, and there is the 
most satisfactory evidence that the chain of succession has remained 
unbroken from that day to this." 

In contrast with this statement, I add a note appended by Mr. 
Cobbett to the passage quoted above from his " Political Register": — 

" Several authors have denied, and with much reason, that St. 
Peter ever set a foot in Rome. In the Acts of the Apostles no 
mention is made of this journey, unless we suppose that Luke has 
omitted to speak of St. Peter for the purpose of attributing to St. 
Paul, his master, the conversion of the capital. If St. Peter had 
been at Rome, his gospel would have been forced to yield to that 
of the apostles of the Gentiles, more accommodating to the heathens, 
as it dispensed with circumcision. It may, therefore, be presumed 
that St. Paul was the first Pope." a 

Of the tenets of the Roman Church, Mr. Cobbett expressed 
himself in very decided terms, but which should be read in con- 
junction with the two following extracts from his " History of the 
Reformation " : — 

" This so much abused papal supremacy was a most salutary 
thing; it was the only check, then existing, on despotic power, 
besides its being absolutely necessary to that unity of faith, without 
which there could be nothing worthy of the name of a Catholic 
Church. To abjure this supremacy was an act of apostacy, and 
also an act of base abandonment of the right of the people." b 

" The truth is, that the Pope had no power but that which he 
derived from the free will of the people." c 

" An eloquent writer has said, that the Christianity preached to 
the infidels of the sixteenth century was no longer the Christianity 
of the three first ages ; it was a bloody murdering religion. For 
five or six hundred years, accustomed to carnage, she had con- 
tracted an inveterate habit of maintaining and aggrandising 
herself by putting whatever opposed her to the point of the sword. 
Burnings, butcherings, the horrid tribunal of the Inquisition, crusades, 
lulls exciting subjects to rebel, seditious preachers, conspiracies, 
assassinations of princes, were the ordinary means which she em- 
ployed against those who submitted not to her injunctions. Nor 
will this appalling, picture of the diabolical proceedings of the 
Romish See excite surprise, when it is considered that it is held 
» Cobbett's " Register," vol. xxvi., p. 370. » 95. c 94. 

c 



18 

lawful by the canons of that Church to kill a Prince wlio is excom* 
municated by the Pope, ivherever that Prince may be found, for the 
universe belongs to the Pope, and the man who is engaged in a 
commission of this kind is engaged in the most charitable 
employment. 

" "What sovereign can be safe — what people can be virtuous — 
where principles of so infernal a nature are recognised and inculcated ? 
It has been attempted by modern Catholics to soften down and give 
a more favourable interpretation to the infamous doctrines formerly 
held and acted upon by the Church of Rome. But if that Church 
is again restored to unrestricted power, how easily will it find 
excuses for reviving its ancient decrees. The readiness with 
which Pope Pius restored the Inquisition and the Jesuits, when 
he felt his authority somewhat extended, and the frivolous pre- 
tences he assigned for this, sufficiently prove that if the sovereigns 
are disposed to permit his Holiness to consult his own inclinations 
merely, as to the lengths he ought to go, there is not one of them 
but may be obliged ere long to supplicate permission to reign from 
the successor of St. Peter. There is not a nation in Europe who 
will not be prepared to dethrone kings, and to deluge the earth with 
blood, on a signal given by the Roman Pontiff." a 

Entertaining such opinions as these of the Roman Church, well 
might Mr. Cobbett exclaim : — "In whatever way you may con- 
template — in whatever light the people of this country may be 
disposed to consider the strenuous efforts now making by the Church 
of Rome to obtain a preponderating influence in Europe, I confess 
the very idea of there being merely a chance of her succeeding 
fills my mind with the most gloomy apprehensions." b 

But I cannot pass on to my subject without also recording 
Mr. Cobbett's statements with regard to the monks, monasteries 
and convents. Let the reader contrast them with the following 
paragraph from his " History of the Reformation " : — 

" I have not yet noticed another great branch, or constituent 
part, of the Catholic Church, namely, the Monasteries, which 
form a subject fall of interest, and worthy of our best attention. 
The choicest and most highly empoisoned shafts in the quiver of 
the malice of Protestant writers seem always to be selected when 

* Cobbett's " Register," vol. xxvi., pp. 350-373, 
t» "Register," vol. xxvi., p. 311. 



19 

they Lave to rail against Monks, Friars, and Nuns. We have 
seen Blackstone talking about ' monkish ignorance and superstition; 1 
and we hear, every day, Protestant bishops and parsons railing 
against what they call ' monkery? talking of the ' drones ' in 
monasteries, and, indeed, abusing the whole of these ancient institu- 
tions as something degrading to human nature, in which work of 
abuse they are most heartily joined by the thirty or forty mongrel 
sects, whose bawling-tubs are erected in every corner of the 
country." a 

In the thirty-second volume of his " Register," p. 1068, we 
read : — 

" The place where a set of monks lived, or where they still live, 
is (as I told you) called a ' convent ' in English. This comes from 
the French word c couvent,' and this comes from the French word 
' couver,' which means ' to set over eggs.' The brood which comes 
from a sitting is in French called a ' covee,' and hence comes our 
word, a ' covey ' of partridges. The monks' place was called ' couvent' 
in French and ' convent' in English, because they pretended that they 
were a brood of the choice children of God, collected together in fulfil- 
ment of that passage of Scripture which says, ' Like as a hen gathereth 
her chicken under her wings, so will the Lord gather together his 
children under his wings.' Pretty chicken they have been ! From 
them have gone forth a great part of the curses which have afflicted 
the world. It was in the convents, or sitting places, that were 
hatched the Inquisition and all those means of robbing, tormenting, 
and brutalizing mankind which have produced such dreadful misery. 
The French Revolutionists disturbed a great many of those hatching 
places. They put the chickens, that is to say, the gormandizing, 
drunken, debauched and savage monks, to flight; sold the lands 
and houses which they had extorted, and exposed the whole thing 
to the hatred it so well merited. In place of meriting the appella- 
tion grounded on the tender idea of a brood of innocent little 
creatures collected under the wings of the fondest of mothers, the 
convents of the monks were wasps' nests, whence the lazy and cruel 
inhabitants sallied forth to rob and sting, to annoy, persecute, and 
murder the industrious, laborious, and provident bees." 

And again : — 

" We have all heard, from our infancy, about the tricks of monks 

h'6. 

c 2 



20 

and friars. Those tricks were very numerous, and, many of them, 
very farcical. They showed, in a phial, some blood, which they 
pretended was the real blood of Christ. They exhibited the parings 
of St. Anthony's nails. They had a bit of the skin of St. Lawrence. 
They had the wonder-working breeches of St. Pacmo, which they 
employed as a charm for barren women. Holy water and sanctified 
crosses they always had on sale, for the purpose of keeping out 
witches, laying the Devil, curing the itch, turning aside thunder- 
bolts, curing weak eyes, preserving gluttons from apoplexy, and for 
various other important uses. This was very impudent, and, the 
same time, hypocritical. — The monks and friars were a set of 
impostors. With all their tricks, they had but one single object 
in view ; namely, that of living well upon the labour of others. 
This was with them the law and the gospel." a 

And, as the result of the Keformation, he says : — 

" The Pope was stripped of all temporal power : the cardinals 
and bishops were reduced to mere cyphers : the nionks were driven 
from their dens of laziness and debauchery : their tricks and frauds 
were exposed : the adored images were turned into firewood : the 
holy relics were laughed at : the light of truth was suffered to beam 
upon the minds of the people : religious persecutions were put an 
end to : and all men were not only permitted, but also encouraged, 
openly to profess, pursue, and enjoy whatever species of religious 
faith and worship they chose. Every man became eligible to offices, 
trusts, and honours. These are facts which none of you will dare 
openly deny. They are as notorious as they will be, and ought to 
be, memorable." b 

During Mr. Cobbett's lifetime, and as an antidote to his " His- 
tory of the Reformation," was published a pamphlet, entitled " Cob- 
bett's Book of the Church of Rome," in which was extracted all 
the above, and other passages denouncing the Roman Church, 
collected from his various writings, to the great confusion and 
annoyance of Mr. Cobbett. I cannot do better than extract from 
that pamphlet the following summing up of this subject : — 

" In his ' Register ' you find Mr. Cobbett denouncing the Roman 
Catholic faith as ' idolatrous and inevitably tending to the debase- 
ment of the human mind ; ' its Popes as ' monsters of immorality, 

a Cobbett's " Register," vol. xxxyiii., p. 93-4. January 13, 1821. 
b Cobbett's "Register," vol. xxxi., p. 821. 



21 

the most abandoned and flagitious of mortals, and giving occasion 
by their example to the perpetration of all sorts of wretchedness, 
imposture, delusion, oppression, robbery, tyranny, murder, and 
massacre ; ' its convents as ' wasps' nests, in which were hatched all 
those means of robbing, tormenting, and brutalizing mankind which 
have produced such dreadful misery ; ' its monks and friars as ' a 
set of gormandizing, drunken, debauched, savage, blood-thirsty 
impostors, having but one single object in view, that of living well 
upon the labour of others, blackguarding each other, mortally 
hating each other, cursing each other by bell, book, and candle, 
frequently proceeding to blows, to scratching, to biting, and not 
unfrequently to poisoning ; ' its priests a as base, ignorant, knavish, 
and interested, a banditti of sanctified robbers, preaching slavery, 
rebellion, and regicide, declaring the decisions of the Old Papa of 
Rome infallible, dreading next to the Devil men of understanding, 
and playing off all manner of infamous tricks to gull the ignorant, 
exhibiting the parings of St. Anthony's nails, a piece of the true 
cross, a bit of the skin of St. Lawrence, the Virgin's smock, and 
the tail of Balaam's ass, and having constantly on sale holy water, 
for the purpose of keeping out witches, laying the devil, curing the 
itch, turning aside thunderbolts, preserving gluttons from aj)oplexy, 
and for various other purposes." 

In his " History of the Protestant Reformation," you find him, 
the self-same Mr. Cobbett, turning up his eyes and exclaiming, 
" How base, how false, how ungrateful have those been who have 
vilified the Roman Catholic Church, its popes, its monks, and its 
priests." 

I need not apologise for this digression, as it is as well that my 
Roman Catholic as well as Protestant readers should fully appreciate 
the value of the opinions of a man who, during his lifetime, boasted 
"of a long career of uncorruptible virtue," and of one who main- 
tained that " writing for the press was a deliberate act, and that 
an assertion in print was justly regarded as irretractable." The 
passages I have quoted were written for the " press " — " a Weekly 

a "All priests," wrote Mr. Cobbett, "have necessarily the desire of influ- 
encing the minds of others. From their very calling, they have a disposi- 
tion to be teaching. Women and children are the materials they like to 
work upon. Next to the Devil, they dread men of understanding." — 
" Register," vol. xxxiii., p. 297. 



22 

Political Register." I "will now proceed with my extracts from his 
so-called " History of the Reformation," published only three years 
after the last of the paragraphs above quoted. 

Of the Reformation in England Mr. Cobbett thus speaks : — 
" The thing called Reformation." 3 The " change which goes by 
the name of the Reformation." 5 " Impudently called the Reform- 
ation." " Audaciously called the Reformation." 41 "The shop 
of the Reformation." 6 "The great Protestant lie." f That 
"fatal event. "s " There was a change, but a change greatly for 
the worse." h "As to the word Reformation, it means, an 
alteration for the letter ; and it would have been hard indeed if the 
makers of this great alteration could not have contrived to give it a 
good name. A fair and honest inquiry will teach us that this was 
an alteration greatly for the ivorse ; that the ' Reformation,' as it 
is called, was engendered in beastly lust, brought forth in hypocrisy 
and perfidy, and cherished and fed by plunder, devastation, and by 
rivers of innocent English and Irish blood ; and that, as to its 
more remote consequences, they are, some of them, now before us, 
in that misery, that beggary, that nakedness, that hunger, that 
everlasting wrangling and spite, which now stare us in the face, 
and stun our ears at every turn, and which the ' Reformation ' has 
given us in exchange for the ease, and happiness, and harmony, 
and Christian charity, enjoyed so abundantly, and for so many 
ages, by our Catholic forefathers." 1 And he scornfully asks 
whether " Christ made the Protestant Church ? Did He suggest 
the Reformation ?" k He declares that "the principles of the 
Reformation are put forward as the ground for excluding them 
[the Romanists] from their civil rights, and also as the ground for 
treating them in the manner the most scornful, despiteful, and 
cruel." 1 " It was not a reformation, but a devastation, of Eng- 
land."" 1 "In England the Reformation contented itself with 
plundering the convents and the poor of their all, and the secular 
clergy in part." n " What that is evil, what that is monstrous, has 
not grown out of this Protestant Reformation?" " The beastly 
lust of the chief tyrant was the groundwork of what is called the 
Reformation." p "That Reformation; what an outrageous abuse 

c 192, 193, 226, 402. d 402. e 188. 
i 3, 4, 25, 78, 111, 118, 192, 349, 449. 
n 441. ° 127. p 156. 



a 6, 449, Part ii. 16. 


b 2. 


» 24. s 447. 


»' 457. 


k 13. " 5. 


™37 



23 

of words is it to call the event by that name!" a "Pulling the 
rings from women's fingers, and tearing the gold clasps from 
books, that was the Protestant valour of the Reformation." b " The 
' Reformation ' was not the work of virtue, of fanaticism, of error, 
of ambition ; but of a love of -plunder. This was its great animating 
principle : in this it began, and in this it proceeded till there was 
nothing left for it to work on." c " Of all the scourges that ever 
afflicted this country, none is to be put in comparison with the 
Protestant Reformation." 41 "The Protestant religion," he says, 
" was established, completely established, by the gibbets, the racks, 
and the ripping knives." e 

The results or effect of the Reformation, he describes as follows : — 
" I am able to show, and shall show, that England was a greater 
country before the Reformation than since." f He declares that 
"monstrous immoralities were produced by the Reformation." s 
" That the nation lost enormously by the change." 11 " The main 
body of the people have been impoverished by the Reformation." * 
" This impoverishment, this degradation, have been caused by the 
event called the Reformation." k " The nation was more populous, 
wealthy, powerful, and free before, than it has been since that 
event." 1 Every commercial and social evil is attributed to the 
Reformation. " The funded system was invented for the twofold 
object of raising money to carry on the no-Popery war, and of 
binding to the no-Popery government all those persons who wished 
to lend money at high interest." 111 " The Protestant Reformation 
worked till it produced the debt, the banks, the stock-jobbers, and 
the American Revolution." 11 "Thus arose loans, funds, banks, 
bankers, bank notes, and a National Debt ; things that England 
had never heard, or dreamed of, before this war for ' preserving the 
Protestant religion as by laiv established;' things without which she 
had had a long and glorious career of many centuries, and had been 
the greatest and happiest country in the world; things which 
she never would, and never could, have heard of, had it not been 
for what is audaciously called ' The Reformation,' seeing that to 
lend money at interest; that is to say for gain; that is to say to 
receive money for the use of money ; seeing that to do this was con- 
trary, and still is contrary, to the principles of the Catholic Church ; 

.182. bl89. c 207. <U91. e 350. f 211. e 325. 

^ 192. . *4G3. k 4CS. » 451. m 409. n 393. 



24 

and, amongst Christians, or professors of Christianity, such, a 
thing was never heard of before that which is impudently called 
'The Reformation.'" 4 "National usury arose out of the Re- 
formation." 5 

He declares that the National Debt was " an invention and 
institution purely Protestant;" "was one of the evident and 
great consequences of the Protestant Reformation, without which 
that debt never could have existed." d " It was made to establish 
the Protestant Church on the ruins of the Catholic Church." e 
The change of a triennial to a septennial Parliament he puts down 
as the work of the Reformation. " It was done," he says, "from 
hostility to the religion of our fathers ! Good God ! What has this 
nation not suffered, and what has it not yet to suffer for this 
hostility ? There is hardly one great calamity, or disgrace, that 
has befallen England during the last three hundred years which 
we do not clearly trace to this fatal source." f 

Of the Reformers themselves he says : — " This Reformation, or 
this change of religion, was brought about by some of the worst, if 
not the very worst, people that ever breathed. The means were 
such as human nature revolts at." s He calls them the " Reforma- 
tion people." 11 "The English double-distilled Reformation 
people." 1 "The mongrel litter." k "The principal authors of 
the Reformation and Protestantism had plunder, and plunder only, 
in view." 1 "For cool, placid, unruffled impudence, there have 
been no people in the world equal to the Reformation gentry." m 
" Rapacious vultures." n " Hellish ruffians." ° " Reformation birds 
of prey." p "The liars of the Reformation." i "The Reforma- 
tion robbers." 1 * "The swaddlers." s "No robbers, of which we 
have ever had an account, equalled these robbers in rapacity, in 
profligacy, and in insolence." 4 "Nothing, indeed, short of 
diabolical malice was to be expected from such men." u "The 
thieves, felons, and traitors, whom Foxe calls martyrs."" 5 " They 
were apostates, perjurers, and plunderers." y 

Luthee he declared was " a most profligate man." z While calling 
him a " Protestant Saint," he says that it was by the arguments of 
the devil that he was induced to turn Protestant, aa and that Luther 

a 402. b 403. « 473. d 209. e p ar t ii. 51. t 415. s 349. 
h 39, 350. " 442. * CO. * 197. m 29. « 173. o 175. P 179. 
q 179. r 180. s 180. » ISO.. u 185. * 248. r 249. * 100. aa 251. 



25 

was taught the Reformation by the devil, a and he falsely declares 
that Melancthcn called Luther "a brutal man, void of piety and 
humanity, one more a Jew than a Christian." The Calvinists he 
designates as " the marauding and murderous, whose creed taught 
them that good works were unavailing, and that no deeds, however 
base and bloody, could bar their way to salvation." 5 

Of the Reformers, generally, he says : — " Perhaps the world has 
never, in any age, seen a nest of such atrocious miscreants as 
Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, and the rest of the distinguished 
Reformers of the Catholic religion. Every one of them was 
notorious for the most scandalous vices, even according to the full 
confession of his own followers. They agreed in nothing but in the 
doctrine, that good works were useless ; and their lives proved the 
sincerity of their teaching ; for, there was not a man of them whose 
acts did not merit a halter." c 

Beza, in particular, he says, " was one of the most infamous 
of all reforming preachers, and perhaps second to none but Luther 
himself." d 

Coligni was " the black-hearted, inveterate, and treacherous 
Coligni." e 

It is not my purpose at present to expose the wicked falsehood 
of these daring and sweeping assertions ; my object is to point 
out the sort of person we have to deal with, and the method he 
has employed to convey his opinions. 

It would be a question for curious speculation, which of the two, 
Protestants or Romanists, are most indebted to Mr. Cobbett for 
his opinions. 

It was said by M c Gavin that the peculiarity in this History is one 
seldom met with in literary warfare ; the advocate is not himself a 
believer in the system which he defends. He does not even profess 
to believe it, but declares himself a " Protestant " and a member of 
the Church of England, which Church, if we believe him, is founded 
on the most horrible system of depravity and vice and by the most 
villanous characters that have ever existed, the system of course 
corresponding with its founders. And yet this Church he confesses 
to be good enough for him, since he hoped to die in her faith ; not- 
withstanding, he asserts that those who adhere to the " ancient 
faith" did right, and those who embraced the Reformation were 

a 270. b 290. c 200. d 277. l ' 284. 



26 

hypocrites and villains. But this state of inconsistency is nothing to 
Mr. Cobbett. According to his own showing he was living in a state 
of error and schism ; which, if he believed his own statement, is 
inconsistent with common honesty. 

Henry VIII. was, of course, with Mr. Cobbett, and all enemies of 
the Reformation, the arch-fiend himself. Mr. Cobbett calls him 
the "old brutal," a "old savage," 5 "remorseless tyrant," the 
"bloody Henry." d He was "the most unjust, hard-hearted, 
meanest, and most sanguinary tyrant that the world ever beheld, 
whether Christian or heathen." e He was "worse than Nero." f 
" The tyrant was bent on destroying the Catholic church, he was 
not less bent on the extirpation of the followers of Luther and his 
tribe of new sects. Always under the influence of some selfish and 
base motive or other, he was, with regard to the Protestants, set 
to work by revenge, as, in the case of the Catholics, he had been set 
to work by lust, if not by lust to be gratified by incest. To follow 
him, step by step, and in minute detail, through all his butcheries 
and all his burnings wo aid be to familiarize one's mind to a human 
slaughter-house and a cookery of cannibals." s The effect of this 
reign is stated to be, that " the foundations of immorality, dis- 
honesty, and pauperism were laid." h 

Henry's minister, Cromwell, Mr. Cobbett thus abuses : — 
" The abominable wretch" 1 " The most disgustingly slavish 
and base," k "the base ruffian, Cromwell." 1 " The most insolent 
and cruel of ruffians." 111 " The cruel and dastardly vice-gerent of 
the tyrant Henry." n " The brutal blacksmith, for whom ruffian is 
too gentle a tenn."° " He was equal to Cranmer in impiousness 
and baseness, rather surpassed him in dastardliness, and exceeded 
him decidedly in quality of ruffian ."p " Of all the mean and 
dastardly wretches that ever died, this was the most mean and 
dastardly." <i " The base creature deserved his death." r " The 
blood ran out of his dirty body to run on the pavement to be 
licked up by hogs or dogs." s " He was assuredly the most cow- 
ardly caitiff that ever died." 4 " He was not more innocent than any 
one out of those thousands upon thousands whom he had quartered, 
hanged, burned, and plundered."" 

a 299. b 194, 301. c 194, 165. d 116. 

b 191. * 139. k 189. » 181. m 189. 

1 189. r 1S9. 8 1S9. 



el91. 


f 94. e 102. 


n 190. 


o 158. p 157. 


1 189. 


-189. 



27 

Of this same Lord Cromwell, Hume says, that he was " a man 
of prudence, industry, and abilities; worthy of a better master, 
and of a better fate." Can they be speaking of the same 
individual ? 

Of Cranmer, Mr. Cobbett says : — 

" Henry's chief adviser and abettor was Thomas Cranmer, a 
name which deserves to be held in everlasting execration : a name 
which we could not pronounce without almost doubting of the 
justice of God, were it not for our knowledge of the fact, that the 
cold-blooded, most perfidious, most impious, most blasphemous 
caitiff expired, at last, amidst those flames which he himself had 
been the chief cause of kindling." a 

He thus introduces Cranmer : — "What I am going to relate of the 
conduct of this Archbishop ... is calculated to make us shudder 
with horror, to make our very bowels heave with loathing; to 
make us turn our eyes from the paper and resolve to read no 
further." 5 " If his hypocrisy did not make the devil blush, he 
could have no blushing faculties in him." c " This wonderful 
hypocrite." d " This matchless, astonishing hypocrite." e " The 
prince of hypocrites." 5 " This precious hypocrite." s " This most 
mischievous of all villains." 11 " An apostate;" 1 and that he 
"was imprisoned most justly as a traitor," k and a " felon." 1 " A 
wretch, covered with robberies, perjuries, treasons, and blood- 
shed." 111 " A monster of iniquity." 11 " Twenty-nine years," he 
adds, " were spent [by Cranmer] in the commission of a series of 
acts which, for wickedness in their nature, and for mischief in their 
consequences, are absolutely without a parallel in the annals of 
human infamy." " His infamy . . . was surpassed by nothing of 
which human depravity is capable." p " What man," he exclaims, 
" with an honourable sentiment in his mind is there, who does not 
almost wish to be a foreigner, rather than be the countryman of 
Crannier?" * Mr. Cobbett himself could not have had much 
patriotism, for he said — " the Pope was a foreigner, exercising 
spiritual power in England; and this the hypocrites [the He- 
formers] pretended was a degradation to the king and country." 1 

Of the other English Reformers he says : — 

" Hooper, Latimer, and Ridley, each of whom was, indeed, 

a 64. b 6G. • 68. <» 70. e 68. f 200. ? 200. h 249. 

'225. *225. '258. n 251. n 252. ° 251. p 105. q 79. r S9. 



23 

inferior in villany to Cranmer, but to few other men that hare ever 
existed." 3 " Pddley was a traitor and felon, as well as offender on 
the score of religion. " b " Knox and Hooper were apostates." 

Edward VI., the successor of Henry VIII., Mr. Cobbett calls, in 
derision, "the sweet young Protestant Saint." d "This was," he 
says, "the age of reformation and baseness." e "A reign ot 
mean plunder." f " Wretchedness and disgrace." s " A hypocri- 
tical, base, corrupt, and tyrannical reign." h "This was the real 
'reformation reign;' for it was a reign of robbery and hypocrisy, 
without anything to be compared with them ; anything, in any 
country or in any age. Religion, conscience, was always the pretext ; 
but, in one way or another, robbery, plunder, was always the end. 
The people, once so united and so happy, became divided into 
innumerable sects, no man knowing hardly what to believe; and, 
indeed, no one knowing what it was lawful for him to say; for it 
soon became impossible for the common people to know what was 
heresy and what was not heresy." i " These were seven of the 
most miserable and most inglorious years that England had ever 
known. Fanaticism and roguery, hypocrisy and plunder, divided 
the country between them. The people were wretched beyond all 
description; from the plenty of Catholic times they had been 
reduced to general beggary ; and, then, in order to repress this 
beggary, laws the most ferocious were passed to prevent even 
starving creatures from asking alms." k "No reign, no age, no 
country, ever witnessed rapacity, hypocrisy, meanness, baseness, 
perfidy, such as England witnessed in those who were the de- 
stroyers of the Catholic, and founders of the Protestant, Church." 1 

Of Queen Mary, the daughter of Henry VIII. , and successor 
of Edward, Mr. Cobbett says that " she was one of the most virtuous 
of human beings." m She was "the honest and sincere," n "the 
virtuous, the patriotic, the calumniated Mary." " Her zeal was 
equal to her sincerity."? "The just, the good, but singularly 
unfortunate, Queen," ^ " whom artful knaves have taught genera- 
tions of thoughtless people to call ' the Moody.' " r " We still have 
the injustice, or the folly, to call her the ' Moody Queen Mary,' all 
whose excellent qualities, all whose exalted virtues, all her piety, 

a 249. b 258. c 225. d 29, 216, &c. e 221. f 215. 

z 222. >' 212. * 199. k 218. ' 221. 

™ 223. n 2G0, 283. ° 283. p 228. i 237. r 383. 



29 

charity, generosity, sacred adherence to her faith and her word, all 
her gratitude, and even those feelings of anxiety for the greatness 
and honour of England, which feelings hastened her to the grave : 
all these, in which she was never equalled by any sovereign that 
sat on the English throne, Alfred alone excepted, whose religion 
she sought to re-establish for ever : all these are to pass for 
nothing, and we are to call her the ' bloody Mary,' because it suits 
the views of those who fatten on the spoils of that Church which 
never suffered Englishmen to bear the odious and debasing name 
of pauper"* "The unfortunate Mary expired in the sixth year 
of her reign, leaving to her sister and successor the example of 
fidelity, sincerity, patience, resignation, generosity, gratitude, and 
purity in thought, word and deed ; an example, however, which, in 
every particular, that sister and successor took special care not to 
follow." b As to the cruelties which lie at the door of her reign, Mr. 
Cobbett says, " For every drop of blood Mary shed, Elizabeth shed 
a pint." c " The punishments of Mary's reign, inflicted, as all men 
know, on very few persons, and those persons not only apostates 
from the faith of their fathers, but also, for the most part, either 
notorious traitors or felons, and, at the very least, conspirators 
against, or most audacious insulters of, the royal authority and the 
person of the Queen." d " As to those punishments, which have 
served as the ground for all the abuse heaped on the memory of 
this Queen, what were they other than punishments inflicted on 
offenders against the religion of the country ? The ''fires of Smith- 
field' have a horrid sound ; but, to say nothing about the burnings 
of Edward VI., Elizabeth, and James I., is it more pleasant to 
have one's boicels ripped out, while the body is alive (as was 
Elizabeth's favourite way), than to be burnt ? Protestants have 
even exceeded Catholics in the work of punishing offenders of this 
sort. And, they have punished, too, with less reason on their side. 
The Catholics have one faith ; the Protestants have fifty faiths ; 
and yet, each sect, whenever it gets uppermost, punishes, in some 
way or other, the rest as offenders." 6 " And, observe again, and 
never forget, that Catholics, where they inflicted punishments, 
inflicted them on the ground that the offenders had departed from 
the faith in which they had been bred, and which they had 
professed; whereas, the Protestant punishments have been inflicted 
»258. b 257. c 223. J 438, e 257. 



30 

on men because they refused to depart from the faith in which they 
had been bred, and which they had professed all their lives. " a 
" Let it never be forgotten that the punishments in Smithfield were 
for the purpose of reclaiming ; for the purpose of making examples 
of a few who set at nought the religion of their fathers, and that in 
which they themselves had been born" b 

Elizabeth, with Mr. Cobbett, is everything that is mean, despic- 
able, cruel, brutal, and licentious. He calls her in several places, in 
derision, " the Virgin Saint Elizabeth," c the word, " Virgin," always 
printed in large capitals. Also, " the horrible woman." d " Horrible 
virago." e The "savage good Queen Bess." f "The ferocious 
woman." s "To whom truth, justice, and mercy, were alike un- 
known." 11 "Foul tyrant." 1 "Ferocious Protestant apostate." k 
" A notorious apostate, from motives as notoriously selfish." l " Inex- 
orable apostate."" 1 " As great a tyrant as ever lived." 11 " Brutal 
hypocrite." "Termagant tyrant." p "Horrible — she tyrant." °i 
"Horrible lynx-like she tyrant." 1- ,"The butchering and racking 
Elizabeth." s " The good and glorious maiden, and racking and rip- 
ping-up Betsy."* Without the slightest attempt at proof, he says 
that "her disgusting amours were notorious." 11 " Historians have 
been divided in opinion, as to which was the worst man that England 
ever produced, her father, or Cranmer; but, all mankind must 
agree, that this was the worst woman that ever existed in England, 
or in the whole world, Jezabel herself not excepted." x He repeat- 
edly refers to " her unparalleled cruelties, her flagrant falsehoods, her 
haughtiness, her insolence, her lewd life."y " This Queen (he says) 
was resolved to reign ; the blood of her people she deemed neces- 
sary to her own safety, and she never scrupled to make it flow." z " She 
never cared for the character or principles of those she employed, so 
that they did but answer her selfish ends." aa " Her reign was al- 
most one unbroken series of robberies and butcheries." bb " During 
the whole of that reign, she was busily engaged in persecuting, in 
ruining, in ripping up the bowels of those who entertained the 
faith." cc He calls it "the pauper and ripping reign." dd " She es- 
tablished (he tells us) an Inquisition, more horrible than ever was 

* 339. b 438. c 217, &c. d 341. e 340. f 318. e 348. 

»>345. J339. k339. »293. » 341. n 305. ° 339. 

p 341. q 331. r 324. 8 Part ii. 19. t 351. u 305. * 348. 

y305. *266. aa297. •* 324. « 107. dd 259. 



31 

heard of in the world."* " The Spanish Inquisition, from its first 
establishment to its present hour, has not committed so much 
cruelty as this ferocious Protestant apostate in any one single 
year of the forty-three years of her reign." 5 " Even the massacre 
of St. Bartholomew was nothing, when fairly compared with the 
butcheries and other cruelties of the reign of this Protestant Queen 
of England. Yes, a mere nothing!" "As the result of this 
reign," Mr. Cobbett adds, " the nation heavily taxed, afflicted with 
war, and afflicted with pestilence; thousands upon thousands of 
English people destroyed, or ruined, or rendered miserable, merely 
to gratify this proud and malignant woman, who thought that she 
could never be safe until all the world joined in her flagrant 
apostacy." d Elizabeth's minister, Cecil, he charges with " apos- 
tacy, forgery, perjury, and shedding of innocent blood." e 

For Mary Stuart he expresses every sympathy. " Poor Mary 
Stuart." f " The celebrated and unfortunate Queen of the Scots."s 
With Mr. Cobbett, Elizabeth was illegitimate, and Mary Stuart 
legitimate. 11 

Oliver Cromwell he declared to be an "unsparing, double- 
distilled Protestant," * and himself and his followers " a canting 
crew." k 

Truly it may be said of Mr. Cobbett, " Thou lovest all devouring 
words, thou deceitful tongue." * 

Such were Mr. Cobbett's expressed opinions of the times and 
characters effecting the Reformation ! And we can now appreciate 
the following estimate of the man and his writings, given by one 
of sound judgment, and a sober reasoner : — 

" He is a popular declaimer, not a philosopher ; a firebrand, not 
a luminary. He emits fire and smoke in abundance, like a volcano, 
but the whole effect is to desolate, not to enlighten. His principal 
artifice consists in the exhibition of a few specious and bold gene- 
ralities, which he illustrates and confirms by a few prominent facts, 
culled for his purpose, without the slightest attempt at that 
patient induction and inquiry which alone lead to solid and useful 
results. Shrewd, intemperate, presumptuous, careless of the truth 
of his representations, and indifferent to their consequences, pro- 
vided they make an impression, he is well qualified, it must be 

> 338. b 339. b 269. d 284. « 297. f 307, 351. 

s 300. >> 370. i 324. k 226. ' Psalm lii. 4. 



confessed, by his faults, no less than by his talents, by his inflam- 
matory style and incendiary spirit, for the office he assumes, to 
scatter delusion, to incite insurrection, the Polyphemus of the mob, 
1 the one-eyed monarch of the blind.' " 

We have before us a book which is worthy of the man who 
brought from America a box of nigger's bones, which he attempted 
to palm on the public as those of Tom Paine ; though we do not 
know that the value of the contents of the box would have been 
much enhanced had they really been what Mr. Cobbett asserted 
that they were. In the present instance we have an equally valu- 
able collection, and got together by the author with a similar in- 
tention, viz., of palming upon the public a quantity of pseudo- 
rubbish, if I may be allowed to coin a word, which appears to be 
the only one suited to describe the contents of the work before us. 

Romanists are now endeavouring to put life into the old bones of 
the Papacy by disseminating Mr. Cobbett' s truculent abuse of the 
Reformers and the Reformation. He made capital out of Tom 
Paine's bones, and now they are following his example in becoming 
resurrection-men, by digging up the mouldering carcase of this 
almost forgotten book. 

This is the book put forward by our Roman Catholic fellow- 
countrymen, as professing to give a true account of the most 
eventful epoch in the history of our country. One feels humiliated 
at the task of having to demolish such a flimsy tissue of falsehoods, 
strengthened (as the author imagines) by insult and abuse, concocted 
by one, according to his own teaching, an apostate, if not an infidel ; 
and with whom no right-minded Englishman, whether Protestant 
or Roman Catholic, would care to associate, or even acknowledge 
as a fellow-countryman. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY INTO ENGLAND, AND THE 
ALLEGED SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME HIS USURPA- 
TIONS IN ENGLAND, AND FINAL OVERTHROW BY HENRY VIII. 

In accordance with the plan I have laid down, I propose to consider, 
in a narrative form, the first important subject which Mr. Cobbett 
has brought prominently before us in his History of the Reformation, 
namely, the Introduction of Christianity into England, as alleged, 
by the emissary of Pope Gregory I., and the assumed supremacy 
of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Christian Church, and the 
assertion that the emancipation of England from Popish rule was 
a schism and a sin chargeable to the Reformers. 

If I prove that the main broad and important facts of history 
have been perverted by Mr. Cobbett, I need scarcely encumber 
my pages with minor points ; but I ask the reader to estimate the 
value of Mr. Cobbett' s assertions by the manifest and gross per- 
versions of those leading facts which do affect the " History of the 
Reformation." 

Mr. Cobbett attempts to perpetuate the vulgar error that we 
are indebted to the Roman Church and her missionaries for our 
Christianity. The following are his statements on this head : — 

" Then coming nearer home, and closer to our own bosoms, our 
ancestors became Christians about six hundred years after the death 
of Christ. And how did they become Christians ? Who first 
pronounced the name of Christ in this land ? Who converted the 
English from Paganism to Christianity ? Some Protestant Saint 
doubtless ? Oh, no ! The work was begun, continued, and ended 
by the Popes, one of whom sent over some monks, who settled in 
Canterbury, and from whose beginnings the Christian religion 
spread, like the grain of mustard seed, rapidly over the land. 
Whatever, therefore, any other part of the world might have known 
of Christianity before the Pope became the settled and acknowledged 
head of the Church, England, at any rate, never had known of any 
Christian religion other than that at the head of which was the 



34 

Pope, and in this religion, with the Pope at its head, England 
continued to be firmly fixed for nine hundred years." a 

" The name of Christ was not pronounced in this land until 
six hundred years after the death of Christ." a 

" England at the time when this religion was introduced," he 
says, " was governed by seven kings, and that state was called the 
Heptarchy. The people of the whole country were Pagans. Yes, 
my friends, our ancestors were Pagans ; they worshipped gods 
made with hands, and they sacrificed children on the altars of 
their idols. In this state England was when the Pope of that 
day, Gregory I., sent forty monks, with a monk of the name of 
Austin at their head, to preach the Gospel to the English." b 

He then asserts that the religion which was then (a.d. 596) 
introduced was the " Roman Catholic religion, with all its dogmas, 
rites, ceremonies, and observances, just as they continue to exist in 
that church even to the present day." " Saint Austin," he continues, 
" upon his arrival, applied to the Saxon king within whose dominions 
the county of Kent lay. He obtained leave to preach to the 
people, and his success was great and immediate. He converted 
the king himself, who was very gracious to him and his brethren, 
and who provided dwellings and other necessaries for them at 
Canterbury. Saint Austin and his brethren being monks lived 
together in common, and from this common home went forth over 
the country preaching the gospel. As the community was 
diminished by death, new members were ordained to keep up the 
supply; and, besides this, the number was in time greatly aug- 
mented. A church was built at Canterbury. Saint Austin was, 
of course, the Bishop, or Head Priest. He was succeeded by 
other Bishops. As Christianity spread over the island, other 
communities like that at Canterbury were founded in other cities ; 
as at London, Winchester, Exeter, Worcester, Norwich, York, 
and so of all the other places where there are now Cathedrals, or 
Bishops' Churches." c 

Mr. Cobbett only repeats the usual Romish perversions of this 
episode in our history, and, as in most of his other statements, has 
one fact only to support a vast superstructure of falsehood. It is 
true that Gregory did send Austin to this country on a mission, 

» 11. b 45. ' 46-48. 



35 

who afterwards established himself at Canterbury, and founded a 
See there ; but it is equally true that he found in this island a 
regular, Episcopal, independent, Christian Church of Apostolic 
foundation, which had subsisted for nearly six successive centuries 
before he had set foot on our shores, and before the voice of a 
spiritual usurper had been heard in our churches. a 

There is evidence extant to satisfy us that the Church of England 
was of Apostolic origin. It was in the year 43 that Britain was 
reduced to a regular dependence of the Roman Empire, and largely 
peopled by emigrants and others from the Roman provinces, before 
even Christianity was planted at Rome. Grildas (a.d. 511), the 
earliest Christian writer of this country whose writings have been 
preserved to us, has recorded as a fact, " that upon this frozen isle, 
while shivering with the icy cold of ignorance and heathenism and 
idolatry, the cheering beams of the true Sun — the Sun of Right- 
eousness — shone brightly out, a little before or about the time of 
the defeat of Boadicea by the Roman legions." That was in the 
year 61, about the period when the Apostles were going about 
"founding and constructing churches;" and it is believed that 
Christianity was planted here even before it was preached at Rome. 
Cardinal Baronius, the Romish annalist, thinks that Peter himself 
preached the gospel in Britain. 5 That the Apostles preached in 
these islands is confirmed by the statement of Theodoret, Bishop 
of Cyprus, a Church historian of the fifth century, who said " the 
Apostles persuaded even the Britons to receive the laws of the 
Crucified Lord." And, again, he said of Paul, u after having gone 
into Spain, he brought salvation to the islands that lie in the ocean." 
This was the geographical description of the British Isles at that 
time. In the previous century we have the same testimony 
conveyed by another ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, who was 
Bishop of Ceesarea, a.d. 313. He was the friend and favourite of 
Constantixb the Great, the first Christian Emperor. Yes ; of 

» Those who cannot consult Stillingfleet's valuable work on the " Origin 
of the British Church," would do well to procure Mr. Foye's pamphlet on the 
"Antiquity of the Early English Church," Sec, 2nd edition, 1851, published 
by the Protestant Eeformation Society, Berners Street, Oxford Street. 

b Annales. Ann. 51, 58n. 

c All these authorities, with others, are given by Stillingfieet, and therefore 
need not be repeated here. 

D 2 



36 

this same Constantine, who was born in Britain, and was proclaimed 
Emperor in Britain, whose wife Helena was a born Briton, and 
was also a Christian. Eusebius, who, from his close connection with 
the Emperor, had every facility of obtaining accurate information 
with regard to Britain, wrote expressly on the subject of the 
Early Christian Churches, and mentions, among others, the British 
Church as being founded by the Apostles in person. Arguing for 
the divine origin of Christianity from the lowness and weakness 
of the instruments employed, namely, a few fishermen, he said :. — 
" What madness were it in such poor illiterate men, understanding 
only their mother tongue, to go about to deceive the world by 

preaching the gospel to the Romans, the Persians 

and those called the British Isles." a Tertullian, of the African 
Church (a.d.200), in his tract " Adversus Juda?os," c. vii., b while 
enumerating the countries over which Christianity had spread, 
refers to Britain as follows : — " In whom else but that Christ who 
is already come have all these nations believed, all the borders of 
Spain, the divers nations of Gaul, and those places of Britain into 
which the Roman arms have not yet been able to penetrate, but 
which are subject to Christ?" Dr. Lingard, the Romish historian, 
writes that before the close of the second century Christianity had 
penetrated among the independent tribes of the north of England. c 
Jerome, a Roman presbyter (a.d. 400), and several others of the 
early Christian writers quoted by Stillingfleet, refer to the same 
subject, attributing to Paul, personally, the fact of having crossed 
the ocean, and preached in the British Isles. 

The time of Paul's first release from Rome agrees exactly 
with the time mentioned by Gildas of the first planting of 
Christianity in Britain. It was in the year 58 that Paul was 
a prisoner at Rome, with the family of the British king, Caractacus, 
and was released in the same year with them, when he proceeded to 
the west to preach the Gospel. 

The Christianity that was planted in this country was the 
Christianity of the Bible, pure in its evangelical truth, untainted' 
by the traditions and superstitions of Popery. 

The story of Lucius, King of Britain, writing to the Bishop of 

a Evang. Demon., lib. iii, c. vii. b p. 189, edit. Kegalt, 

c " Hist, of England," vol. i, c. i, p. 6Q. London, 1823. 



37 

Borne, Eleutherius, a.d. 156, entreating that, by his command, he 
might become a Christian, is a fable, for Eleutherius was not a 
Bishop until twenty years after the period this circumstance Is 
said by Bede to have taken place. 

Both Gildas and Bede record the persecutions of the year 303, 
known as the Diocletian Persecutions, which stained our soil with 
the blood of our Christian martyrs : — " Then it was that Britain 
enjoyed the highest glory by her devoted confession of God, and 
great was the number of her martyrs." Our history records the 
martyrdom of Aaron and Julius, who were " put to a cruel death 
in Caerleon-upon-Usk, and Alban (called the Saint) who suffered 
upon a hill near the locality which is named after him." On the 
proclamation of Constantino as Emperor at York — the same Con- 
stantine who was the first Christian Emperor — peace was restored 
to the British Church and to the Christians, as recorded by Bede. a 

Coming to the third century, Dr. Lingard, the Roman 
Catholic historian, in his History of England, says, " We have 
undoubted proof that the believers in Christianity were numerous, 
and that a regular hierarchy had been instituted before the close 
of the third century ; for, by contemporary writers, the Church in 
Britain is always put on an equality with the Churches of Spain 
and Gaul." b 

That the British Bishops held no inconsiderable position in the 
Christian Church is established on Romish authority, by the fact 
that the names of three English Bishops, namely, of York, London, 
and Caerleon-upon-Usk, and of one Deacon, are appended to the 
list of signatures of those who attended at the Council of Aries, 
a.d. 314. The names of British Bishops also stand on the records 
of the Council alleged to have been held at Sardica, a.d. 347, and 
at that of Arminium, a.d. 359. Councils of the Church were also 
held in England in the sixth century ; at one, presided over by 
■St. David, there were present one hundred and eighteen Bishops. 
Schools and colleges were established, and Bede informs us that, 
in one monastery alone, there were no fewer than 2,100 members; 
proving, as an incontestable fact, that, previously to the first "papal 
aggression" under Gregory I. there was a Christian Episcopal 
Church existing in this country. 

a Lib. i, c. vii. & viii. London, 1843. 
b Cap. i, vol. i, p. 67. London, 1823. 



38 

According to Dr. Lingard, a Christianity continued under the 
Heptarchy to be the religion of the old natives, though reduced to 
subjection of the invaders ; during this invasion, the Christians 
were again persecuted and driven from the west ; but even when 
Austin set foot on our shores, we have the fact recorded that 
Bertha, the royal spouse of Ethelbert (himself a Pagan), was a 
zealous Christian. She had with her, at her palace at Canterbury, 
Luidhard, her Bishop, as her principal chaplain. Ethelbert was at 
this time monarch, or supreme ruler, over the Anglo-Saxon 
provinces. 

Austin, Pope Gregory's missionary, arrived here in the year 
596. He was favourably received by Bertha and Bishop Luidhard. 
Mr. Cobbett's statement, as to the English being Pagans at this 
time, is only so far true, that this part of Britain was occupied by 
the invaders who had settled in Kent as conquerors of that part 
of England. Dr. Lingard says, " Ethelbert could not be unac- 
quainted with the Christian religion. It was probably the belief 
of the majority of the British slaves in his dominions. It was 
certainly professed by his Queen." b Austin ingratiated himself 
with the King, and obtained a settlement in Canterbury. 

We now enter on the seventh century. 

Austin demanded a conference with the British Bishops, and by 
the assistance and influence of Ethelbert, he obtained a meeting 
with them at a place near "Worcester. Here he proposed to 
" ratify a Catholic peace with them, to unite with him in the 
common labour of preaching the Gospel to the Gentile Anglo= 
Saxons." " After a lengthened disputation," says Bede, " they 
refused their compliance, and rejected his entreaties, exhortations, 
and threats," he having made submission to the Bishop of Borne 
one of the stipulations. A second conference took place, at which 
were present seven Bishops, " with many most learned Doctors, par- 
ticularly from their most noble monastery " of Bangor, over which 
Dinoth presided as Abbot. The real object of Austin was to 
reduce the British Bishops and churches to subjection to the see of 
Borne. This soon became apparent, and they resisted Austin, 
and " charged him with pride," and declared that the only supremacy 

a Vol. i, p. 81. Edition, London, 1823. 

b "Hist, of England," vol. i, c. ii, p. 108. London, 1823. 



they recognised under Christ was their own Bishop. Austin 
humbled his tone, and reduced his request to three points. He 
said " You do many things contrary to our customs, yet, if you 
obey me in these three particulars, viz : — in the time of observing 
Easter, 3 in the manner of baptizing children according to the 
custom of the Holy Koman Apostolic Church, and in preaching 
jointly with us the word of God to the English nation, — all other 
things that you do we will strive to tolerate, however contrary 
they may be to our customs." To this the British Bishops 
answered, " We will do none of these things, neither will we have 
you for our Archbishop." Bede thus records the reply of Austin : 
" To whom Augustin, the man of God, replied, in a menacing- 
tone, ' If, then, you will not accept of peace with brethren, you 
shall have war with your enemies ; and if you will not preach the 
way of life to the Anglo-Saxons, you shall suffer the vengeance 
of death at their hands.' All which threat was soon after ful- 
filled in every tittle, as the man of God had predicted." Yes ! 
very shortly after this, by the command of Ethelfred, one thousand 
two hundred unarmed monks were all butchered in cold blood. 
" Thus," adds Bede, "was fulfilled the prediction of the holy 
Bishop Augustin [though he himself had been long before taken 
up into the kingdom of heaven], that those perfidious men might 
feel the vengeance of temporal death also, for having despised the 
offer of eternal salvation." b The words in brackets are supposed 
to be an interpolation, because they are not found in King Alfred 
the Great's Anglo-Saxon translations of Bede's history. The 
slaughter occurred in a.d. 603 ; Austin, in 604, is recorded to have 
ordained Millitus, and must have been still alive. Had Mr. 
Cobbett been writing on the other side of the question, he would 
have dogmatically asserted, that the wish was father to the thought. 
For the sake of our common Christianity, it is to be hoped that 
Austin had no hand in the instigation of this fearful massacre. 
Bat what are we to say of Mr. Cobbett's assertion, that Austin 
found us all Pagans, and that he converted us to Christianity ? 
The British Bishops, it is recorded, returned from the interview 

a In this the British Christians followed the custom of the Eastern 
Christians, showing that the former did not derive their Christianity from 
the West. 

b Bede, p. 179, vol. ii, c. ii. London, 1843. 



40 

with Austin, declaring that they would not submit to him as their 
Archbishop. The following is the reply of Dinoth : — " Know, 
assuredly, and have no doubts upon the matter, that we all, and 
each one of us, are obedient and subject to the Church of God, and 
to the Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian, to love everyone 
in his degree in perfect charity, and to help everyone, by word and 
deed, to be the children of God. And other obedience than this I 
know not to be due to him whom you call Pope and father of 
fathers, or to be claimed and demanded ; and this obedience we are 
ready to give, and to pay to him and to every Christian continually. 
Besides, we are under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon- 
upon- Usk, who, under God, is to oversee us, to cause us to keep 
the way spiritual." a 

Dr. Lingard, in his history of the event above referred to, 
appends the following observation : — 

"It is surprising that so many modern historians should have 
represented the Britons as holding .different doctrines from those 
professed by the Roman missionaries, though these writers have 
never yet produced a single instance of such difference. Would 
Augustin have required the British clergy to join in the conver- 
sion of the Saxons if they had taught doctrines which he 
condemned? Bede has related, with great minuteness, all the 
controversies between the two parties. They all regard points of 
discipline. Nowhere does the remotest hint occur of any difference 
respecting doctrine." b 

I quote Dr. Lingard, not as an authority, for in many respects 
his history betrays the partiality of a sectarian partizan ; but I do so 
on the same principle that Romanists quote Cobbett as a Protestant. 

Austin's mission was not to christianize or evangelize England, 
but to subjugate her to the control of the Bishop of Rome. 

So much for Mr. Cobbett's assertion that Christianity was 
introduced into Britain by the Pope's emissary in the sixth 
century ; and this is the man who undertakes to write a history ! 
It is difficult to imagine that a man of Mr. Cobbett's attainments 
could believe the things he so boldly advances ; and it is equally 

a Spelman's " Concilia," torn, i, p. 108. London, 1639. Wilkin's 
" Concilia Mag. Brit.," pp. 26, 27, vol. i. London. 1737. 
h " Hist, of England," p. 113, vol. i, c. ii. London, 1823. See post. pp. 41, 42. 



41 

difficult to suppose that he expected to be believed by others. 
There is scarcely a misrepresentation which has found its way into 
the pages of writers against the Reformed Church, there is not one 
single calumny which its bitterest enemies has invented, but has 
found its way into Mr. Cobbett's pages. That this oft-exposed 
fable should be repeated by him is to be accounted for only by the 
fact, that some strong inducement must have been held out to 
compensate him for this prostitution of truth. 

Mr. Cobbett repeatedly insists, as a fact, that the religion 
introduced by Gregory was the same religion as now professed by 
the Roman Church. This is one other of the numerous fallacies 
which he attempts to palm off on his uninformed and credulous 
readers. 

If we set aside " The Dialogues" attributed to Gregory, con- 
taining, as they do, anile fables, as spurious, (which they no doubt 
are,) though corruptions and superstitions had already begun 
to work their way into the Roman system, the profession of faith 
of the Roman Church was, in the main, sound, and the same as 
professed by the Christians in Britain. It is true that the invoca- 
tion of the departed, and prayers for the dead, were, to a certain 
extent, practised ; but the former had not been introduced into the 
Latin Liturgy until a.d. 617. The corrupt and distinctive doctrines 
-of the modern Roman Church had not then been even broached. 
The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not recognised, and the 
title of Universal Bishop was then actually repudiated by that 
Bishop. The cup was not withheld from the laity until the year 
1414. The doctrine of the real corporeal presence, or transubstan- 
tiation, was not invented until the eleventh century. The elevation 
and adoration of the host were not practised until the thirteenth 
century ; and the private or solitary administration of the sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper, specially condemned by Gregory .himself, was 
adopted only in the year 700. Indulgences extending to the remis- 
sion of temporal punishment were an invention of a long subsequent 
date. The first act of absolution after confession took place 
a.d. 750, and the present form of absolution in use in the Roman 
Church, and which is made essential to its validity, was not in- 
troduced until the twelfth century, when the various parts of 
penance were first defined. Private compulsory confession to a 
priest was not decreed until the year 1215. The canonization of 



42 

saints did not take place until the ninth century. The definition 
that the sacraments were seven in number was not advanced until 
a.d. 1130, but was confirmed, as a doctrine, in 1439, when purgatory 
was also established as a doctrine, and when the Pope of Rome 
was, for the first time, declared to be " the Vicar of Christ," to the 
exclusion of all other bishops ; and it was not until the year 1546 
that the Apocryphal Books were declared by the Roman Church to 
be a part of the sacred canon of scripture, and tradition, for the 
first time, placed on a level with the Word of God. a 

In fact, the Romanism of the time of the Reformation was very 
different from the religion professed by the Roman Church at the 
time of Gregory I., Bishop of Rome ; so much so, that modern 
apologists have been obliged to have recourse to a new theory — a 
theory subversive of the proposition laid down by Mr. Cobbett — 
namely, the theory of development, which proposes to remedy an 
obvious flaw in the claim of antiquity for Roman doctrines. 
Christianity, they say, was not completely revealed to us by Christ 
and his Apostles, but much was left to be developed by time and 
circumstances, and, like any art or science, became more perfect 
by cultivation. We deny, therefore, most emphatically, the 
assertion made by Mr. Cobbett, that it was the " Roman Catholic 
religion that was introduced into England in the year 596, with 
all its dogmas, rites, ceremonies, and observances, just as they all 
continued to exist at the time of the Reformation ; and as they 
continue to exist in that Church even to this day." b 

Mr. Cobbett's reckless statement — the more extraordinary as 
coming from a professed Protestant and member of the Church of 
England — with reference to Pope Gregory's profession of faith, 
must be treated, as his other unproved assertions, as a fiction. 
But his boldness increases as he proceeds. He actually asserts 
that there was no other Christian Church known in the world, nor 
had there been any other thought of, for 1,500 years after Christ, c 
and that there was no other Christian religion but the then 
professed Roman religion, for the same period. If an uncompro- 
mising falsehood is to be advanced, it is as well that it should be 

a For proofs of each of these distinctive propositions, founded exclusively 
on Romish authorities, the reader is referred to Collette's " Novelties of 
Romanism," 2nd edition. Religious Tract Society. Price 4s, 

*> 46. c io. 



plain and outspoken; it has, at least, the ajDpearance of truth. 
Mr. Cobbett has overlooked the fact which we have recorded in the 
New Testament, that there were the Seven Churches of Asia 
existing before that of Rome. We have heard of the Church at 
Jerusalem, which was described, at a General Council, to be the 
Mother and Mistress of all Churches. a 

Christians were first so called at Antioch. "We have also heard 
of the Churches of Africa, which were wholly independent of the 
Church and Bishop of Rome; and there is the Greek Church, 
whose Patriarch, or Chief Bishop, at the time of Gregory I., 
assumed the title of " Universal Bishop," and who retains that 
title to the present day. All these were independent Christian 
Churches. 

Mr. Cobbett would have us forget the Lollards, and the Waldensian 
and Abigensian Churches, which are standing monuments against 
the Roman Church ; a Church which sought to extirpate by fire 
and sword the last spark of Apostolic Christianity more than three 
hundred years before the dawn even of the Reformation, properly 
so called, though there have not been wanting those who have ever 
protested against Rome's corruptions. 

Mr. Cobbett declares it to be a truth that the Bishop of Rome 
had, from the commencement, a universally acknowledged supremacy 
over the whole Christian Church : — " From the persecutions which, 
for the first three hundred years, the Church underwent, the Chief 
Bishops, successors of St. Peter, had not always the means of 
openly maintaining their supremacy ; but they always existed ; 
there was always a Chief Bishop, and his supremacy was always 
acknowledged by the Church, that is to say, by all the Christians in 
the world." b 

This is a substantive declaration of an alleged historical fact. 
Now, the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the first three cen- 
turies did not extend beyond the prefecture of the city. As some 
proof, I may refer to the fact, that the Bishopric of Milan was 
wholly independent of Rome to the days of Hildebrand, a.d. 1073. 
The Bishop Aqueleia resisted the attempts of Gregory I. to establish, 
by armed force, his jurisdiction, a.d. 590. Ravenna, even so late 

a Labb. et Coss. ConciL, torn, ii, col. 906. Paris, 1671. 
HI. 



44 

as 649, was also independent of Rome; and its Archbishop, 
Maurus, was instituted by the Emperor, and Maurus absolutely 
refused submission to the See of Koine. a 

Mosheim, the ecclesiastical historian, in his Commentaries on 
the Affairs of Christians, before the time of Constantine the Great, 
a.d. 325, says — " Although all the Churches were, in this first Age of 
Christianity, united together in one common bond of faith and love, 
and were, in every respect, ready to promote the interests and 
welfare of each other by a reciprocal interchange of good offices, 
yet, with regard to Government and internal economy, every indi- 
vidual Church considered itself as an independent community, none 
of them ever looking, in those respects, beyond the circle of its 
own members for assistance, or recognising any sort of external 
influence or authority. Neither in the New Testament, nor in any 
ancient document whatever, do we find anything recorded, from 
whence it might be inferred, that any of the minor Churches were 
at all dependent on, or looked up for direction to, those of greater 
magnitude or consequence. On the contrary, several things occur 
therein which put it out of all doubt that every one of them enjoyed 
the same rights, and was considered as on a footing of the most 
perfect equality with the rest." b 

To trace the history of the usurpations of the Bishops of Rome, 
from their beginnings to the full-blown prerogatives assumed by 
Hildebrand (Gregory VII.), of the eleventh century, would require 
a volume of itself. I can give but an outline. Their proceedings 
were from the beginning marked by violence or fraud. When 
Victor, Bishop of Rome, took upon himself to cut off the Eastern 
Churches from communion with the Western Churches, because 
they differed from the Western custom of keeping Easter, 
Irenasus, Bishop of Lyons, in the year 193, by letter addressed to 
Victor in his own name and in the names of the other brethren 
of Gaul, " rebuked him most severely" for breaking the peace of 
the Church. Tertullian, in the year 190, actually turned into 
ridicule the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome, on the plea of his 
being successor of St. Peter. d 

a Hist. Eevennant, Hieronynio. Puibeo, lib. iv, p. 205. Yenet., 1590. 

b Cent, i, sec. 48. 

e Euseb. " Eccl. Hisi,' ; lib. v, c. xxiy. Colonise, 1612. 

d Tertul. de Pudic. Oper., pp. 767 ; 768. Edit, Rhenan. 









45 

Hippolytus, a.d. 201-219, Bishop of Portus, near Rome itself, 
wrote a treatise, in which he accused and condemned two of his 
contemporary Bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus, for 
heresy . a 

In the third century, the Church of Africa was most flourishing. 
Gregory of Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople, informs us that 
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a.d. 248, " presided, not only over 
the Church of Carthage in Africa, but over all the regions of the 
west, and over the east and south and northern parts of the world 
also." b A precedence of honor was given to the BishojD of Rome, 
because of the magnitude of the city ; c or, as Regaltius, the Roman 
Catholic commentator on Cyprian's Epistles, said, that Rome was 
called by Cyprian the " principal Church, because it was constituted 
in the principal city;" d not, therefore, from any supposed divine 
right or appointment or supremacy. And it was testified by 
Justinian, in his " Xovelhe," e that the Primate of the African 
Church was independent of all other Churches. The cases of 
Fortunatus, a presbyter, and Felicissinius, both of the African 
Church, are often cited. They were excommunicated by Cyprian, 
one of whom had sought to depose Cyprian from his see. They 
laid their complaint before Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, who, on 
their misrepresentations, was induced to take up their case. 
Cyprian withstood the Roman Bishop ; and at a Synod held at 
Carthage, at which eighty-seven African Bishops were present, a 
decree was passed rejecting the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome, 
and forbidding his interference in their affairs. f Shortly after this 
another question arose, namely, that of re-baptizing those who had 
received the rite from the hands of heretics. Cyprian maintained 
that such baptism was invalid, and for which opinion Stephen, 
Bishop of Rome, stigmatised Cyprian as a "false apostle, false 

» See Wordsworth's " St. Hippolytus," &c. Pp. 210-213. London, 1853. 

b In Orat. xviii, torn, i, p. 281. Morcll's Edit. Paris, 1630. 

c " Quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma prtecedere." 
Cyprian, Ep. ad Cornel, p. 54. Paris, 1836. 

d " Ecclesia principalis, id est, urbe principali constituta." Eegalt. in 
Cyp. Ep. iy, p. 84. Paris, 1666. 

« Just. "Novel.," consistet. exxxi, c. iv. 1567. 

f Labb. et Coss. Concil., torn, i, col. 786. Paris, 1671, 



46 

Christ, and deceitful worker ;" a but Cyprian snapped his fingers 
at him ; and Firmilian, Bishop of Csesarea, sneered at him for his 
impertinent interference and assumed authority, and declared 
Stephen to be a second Judas, and called him an arrogant, pre- 
sumptuous, manifest, and notorious idiot, b and an apostate from 
the communion of ecclesiastical unity, and a schismatic ! 

On another occasion the Bishop of Rome attempted again to 
interfere in the affairs of the African Church, and this was in 
Augustin's time, then Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, a.d. 419. The 
African Bishops withstood three successive Popes, Zozimus, Boni- 
face, and Celestine. In this case, also, two recreant and depraved 
Priests had sought the protection and interference of the Bishop of 
Rome, as a Bishop of a more potent See. A Council was forthwith 
called. The Pope's legate, Faustinus, on the part of his master, pro- 
duced a forged canon, which it was pretended had been passed at the 
first General Council of Nice, a.d. 325, purporting to give authority 
to the Bishop of Rome in all cases of appeal. The forgery was 
ultimately detected by the production of the genuine canon, c and 
accordingly the famous capitulum of the Council of Milevis, in 
Africa, was passed which forbade all appeals, except to African 
Councils or to the Primates of the provinces. And if any one 
appealed beyond seas, he was not to be received into communion 
by any in Africa. This was signed by Augustin and all the other 
Bishops, and sent to the Bishop of Rome. This event the Roman 
Cardinal Cusanus thus explained: — " The Council of Africa with- 
stood Celestine in that he would go against the Council of Nice, 
and Celestine replied not that he might do it, but alleged for 
himself the Council though corrupted." d And this same Cardinal 
gives the following as the interpretation of the 6th Canon of Nice, 
which has also been corrupted to give a precedence to the Roman 
See : — " As the Bishop of Rome had power and authority over all 
his Bishops, so the Bishop of Alexandria, according to custom, 
should have throughout Egypt and the rest." e This same forged 

a See the Benedit. Edt. of Cyprian's Eps., p. 358. Yenet., 1758. 
•» See the reference and place last cited. 
c Labb. ConciL, torn, ii, col. 1589. Paris, 1671. 

d " Concord. Cathol., 5 ' lib. ii, c. xx, p. 718, in Op. Nic. de Cusa. Basil., 1565. 
e " Quoniam parilis mos est, Komanus habct omnium suorum episcoporum 
potestatem, ita est Alexandrinus ex more habet JEgyptum." Ibid Idem. 



47 

canon was attempted to be passed in the fourth General Council, that 
of Chalcedon, a.d. 451, which caused great contention, a and led to 
the passing of a decree, giving the like privileges and the same 
ecclesiastical rights to the Bishop of Constantinople as to the 
Bishop of Rome. b The fifth General Council, the second of Con- 
stantinople, placed the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria on the 
same ecclesiastical footing ; and the sixth General Council, a.d. 680, 
expressly declared that Rome and Constantinople should enjoy 
equal privileges, declaring that the city which was adorned with 
the senate and empire, as was then the case with Constantinople, 
should, on that account, have the like privileges with the older princely 
city of Rome, and have the like majesty in ecclesiastical affairs. 
Thus matters stood until the Council of Florence, a.d. 1439, when 
some Greek Bishops who were present were induced to submit to 
a decree giving a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome, and an agree- 
ment was patched up by fraud and bribery; but directly these 
Greek Bishops returned to their country, and it was known what 
had occurred, a Council was called at Constantinople, at which all 
the decrees of the Council of Florence were reversed, and the 
Bishops who had attended were deposed. c All the early Councils 
were summoned by the Emperor, and the Bishop of Rome had no 
power or authority in the matter. 

The first General Council, Nice, a.d. 325, was called by the 
Emperor Constantine, over which Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, 
acted as president, but not as the legate of the Bishop of Rome, 
as often erroneously stated. The second General Council, Con- 
stantinople, a.d. 381, was convoked by the Emperor Theodosius, 
over which Melitius, Bishop of Antioch, presided. Rome was 
not represented. According to Cardinal Baronius, this Council 
was held against the will of the Bishop of Rome. d The Council 
of Ephesus, a.d. 431, was assembled on the edict of the Emperor 
Theodosius II. Pope Leo I. did his utmost to prevent the holding 

a This fact was referred to by Marcus, Archbishop of Ephesus, at the 
twentieth session of the Council of Florence, A.D. 1439. See Surius Concil., 
torn, iv, p. 430. Col. Agrip. 1567. 

•> Labb. et Coss. Concil. can. xxviii, col. 769. Paris, 1671. 

c Labb. et Coss. Concil. Constantin., sess. ii, torn, xiii, col. 1367. Paris, 
1671. 

d " Kepugnante Damaso celebrata." an. 553, sec. 224. 



48 

of this Council, but did not succeed. The Council of Chalcedon, 
a.d. 451, the fourth General Council, was convoked by the 
Emperor Marcian. Leo again tried to prevent this Council being 
called, but, failing in this, he tried to have it held in Italy ; in 
this he also failed, though he had besought the Emperor, with 
tears in his eyes, to do so; a and this Council was actually presided 
over by a layman ; b and so on, from Council to Council, for many 
centuries afterwards ; the seventh General Council, Nice, a.d. 787, 
being actually convoked by the Pagan Empress Irene. The 
appointment even of the Bishop of Rome could not be made 
without the sanction of the Emperor. This right was retained 
until the time of Hildebrand of the eleventh century. These 
facts arc of the greatest importance, as affecting the position of 
the reigning sovereign of this country, though a layman, as head 
of all ecclesiastical affairs. The Emperor, or King, for the time 
being was supreme, and our Kings merely re-asserted a right 
inherent in the constitution of the Church. 

The seat of empire being changed from Rome to Constantinople., 
the Emperor Mauritius conferred on John, the Bishop of the latter 
see, the title of " Universal Bishop," which was opposed and pro- 
tested against by Pelagius II. and Gregory I., who declared that 
the title was hitherto unheard of in the Church, and to assume the 
same was to be a forerunner of Antichrist. Boniface III., how- 
ever, second in succession after Gregory I., assumed that same title 
under the following circumstances : — Phocas obtained the seat of 
empire by the murder of his predecessor and his wife and five 
children. Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, refusing to recognise 
the title of such a monster, Phocas at once made common cause 
with the Bishop of Rome, who was more facile on such points, and 
an unholy compact was entered into between them : the Roman 
Bishop was to recognise the title of Phocas as Emperor, and the 
Emperor was to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome under the title 
of " Universal Bishop." It is under this compact that the spiritual 
supremacy of the Bishop of Rome derived its origin. The tem- 

a See Leo's Ep. Labb. et Coss. Concil., torn, iv, cols. 37, 38, col. 46, col. 984. 
Paris. 1671. "Omnes sacerdotes cum lachryniis mansuetudini vestige 
supplicant, ut generalem synodum jubetis intra Italiam celebrari." 

b Ibid, col. 78, col. 325. 



49 

poral sovereignty of the Bishop of Eome was acquired under 
similar circumstances, Pepin, the son of Charles Martel, aspired 
to the throne of France, then occupied by Childeric III. He 
applied to Zachery, Bishop of Rome, who was then (a.d. 754) 
threatened by an invasion of Lombards, under their king Aistulphus, 
to recognise him as Emperor, and he would in turn protect 
Zachery from these invaders. These terms were ratified. Pepin 
accordingly deposed Childeric, and the Bishop of Rome formally 
recognised Pepin as Emperor. When Zachery died, his successor, 
Stephen, confirmed the compact, and absolved Pepin from his oath 
of allegiance to Childeric, and crowned him Emperor in his stead ; 
and, in return for this service, and by force of arms, Pepin handed 
over to the See of Rome the Exarchate of Ravenna and other 
provinces, and created the Bishop of Rome a temporal sovereign over 
these states ; and these dominions were extended by Charlemagne 
when he proclaimed himself King of the Lombards. Thus were 
the temporal and spiritual sovereignty conferred on the Bishop of 
Rome by a murderer and a usurper respectively. a It was shortly 
after this that the series of forged Decretals appeared. These 
were compiled by one Isidore Mercator in the ninth century, but 
purported to be written by successive early Popes. Their special 
object was to convey the belief that the temporal, as well as 
spiritual, supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was recognised as of 
divine origin, established from the time of Peter in uninterrupted 
succession. It was under pretence of these forgeries that Innocent 
III. seized on Ancona, Spoleto, and Assisi, and other cities, as 
belonging to the patrimony of St. Peter. These forgeries, imposed 
on the Christian world, had their desired effect, as they were be- 
lieved to be genuine for many centuries. They are now, however, 
universally admitted by Romanists themselves b to be forgeries of 
the most clumsy and impudent character ; but, though now admitted 
to be so, the claim of spiritual supremacy, resting on these forgeries 
as of divine origin, is still retained. 

a The alleged gift — " Donation " — of Constantine the Emperor, of lands to 
the Bishop of Koine is a forgery ; this and the forged " Decretals" Gibbon 
called " the two magic pillars of the spiritual and temporal dominion of 
Home." 

b See Fleury's " Ecclesiastical History," torn, ix, p. 456. Paris, 1769. 

F. 



50 

Mr. Cobbett must have been aware of all this, for it is nothing 
new ; but, whichever way we turn, in whatever Mr. Cobbett advances, 
we meet with nothing but misrepresentation and falsehood. 

Starting from the origin of Christianity, Mr. Cobbett dog- 
matically says that Christ selected Peter to be the head of His 
Church ; and this he deduces, after the fashion of all Roman con- 
trovertists, from the text Matt, xvi, 18, that his name was Peter, 
a rock, or stone, and on him Christ built His Church, and that 
"here was a head of the Church promised for all generations; " 
that he, Peter, died a martyr at Rome, about sixty years after the 
birth of Christ ; " that another supplied his place ; " and " that there 
is most satisfactory evidence that the chain of succession has 
remained unbroken from that day to this." a We have seen that 
Mr. Cobbett has himself declared that the story here advanced as 
to Peter's headship of the Church is an " apocryphal tradition; " b 
and so we may safely leave it, particularly as the Roman Catholic 
historian Du Pin is constrained to admit that Peter's alleged 
primacy is not recorded in the early Christian writers Justin 
Martyr, Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, " or the other most ancient 
fathers." c As to the alleged unbroken succession, that story is 
equally apocryphal. The Jesuits Labbeus and Cossart, in their 
Compilation of the Councils/ give a list of Popes. They note the 
number of opposing Popes who contended for the Papal chair, 
sometimes three at a time claiming the seat, and each acknowledged 
by contending factions. They also note the various and numerous 
schisms in the Papacy, and the interregnums when no Popes sat, 
the vacancy occurring sometimes for two years at a time ; all which 
completely breaks the chain of a supposed continuous succession, 
not to mention the fearful massacres and murderings which have 
taken place to enable one or other Pope to hold the chair, and the 
fraud and simony to obtain it. Mr. Cobbett himself has supplied 
us with an instructive chapter on the subject, which the reader 
may now profitably reperuse. e But, as no practical goodwill result 

a 41. 6 Ante, p. 14. 

c " De Petri primatu nihil apud Justineum, Irenasnm, Clementem 
Alexandrintim, et alios antiquissimos," &c., p. 313. "History." Dublin, 1721. 
d Paris Edit., 1671, torn, xvi, col. 130. 
e See ante, pp. 15, 16. 



51 

from such a line of argument, as affecting the benefit, or otherwise, 
to the Church of a Reformation, further than advancing the obvious 
and unanswerable plea of justification, I shall proceed with my 
"subject. 

Having traced the claim and assumption of supremacy by the 
Bishop of Rome over Christendom, we may appreciate the boldness 
of the following statement advanced by Mr. Cobbett : — 

" Before we proceed further, let us clearly understand the 
meaning of these words — Catholic, Protestant, and Re- 
formation. 

" Catholic means universal ; and the religion which takes this 
epithet was called universal, because all Christian people of every 
nation acknowledge it to be the only true religion, and because 
they all acknowledge one and the same head of the Church, and 
this was the Pope, who, though he generally resided at Rome, was 
the head of the Church in England, in France, in Spain, and, in 
short, in every part of the world where the Christian religion was 
professed. But there came a time, when some nations, or, rather, 
parts of some nations, cast off the authority of the Pope, and, of 
course, no longer acknowledged him as the head of the Christian 
Church. These nations, or parts of nations, declared, or protested, 
against the authority of their former head, and also against the 
doctrines of that Church, which, until now, had been the only 
Christian Church. They, therefore, called themselves Protestors, 
or Protestants ; and this is now the appellation given to all who 
are not Catholics." a 

Mr. Cobbett desires it to be understood that "the protest" of 
the Reformers was against the supremacy of Rome. That is not 
true. The corruption of the Church of Rome, both in doctrine 
and practice, and the exactions of the Pope and the Roman 
Court and Priests, became so intolerable that certain German 
princes met to proclaim their grievances, and to protest against 
the vices, corruptions, and exactions of the Church and Priest- 
hood respectively — hence the origin of the term Protestant. The 
Reformation, properly so called, had nothing to do with the 
authority or headship of the Pope of Rome. 

The abrogation- of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over 

»3. 

e 2 



52 

the Church in England was an event which took place anterior 
to the Reformation in this country, and had nothing whatever in 
common with the reformation of doctrine. 

I propose to give a brief sketch of the history of this event 
from the time of Austin's visit to our shores. 

Having fixed his See at Canterbury, Austin and his followers 
continued in communion with, and subject to, the See of Rome; 
and the authority of the Bishop of Rome took firmer hold as this 
mission spread from east to west. Collier, the ecclesiastical 
historian, however, correctly described the relative positions of the 
two Christian communions in this country at that period. He 
said : — 

"It is evident that the British Christians had the spiritual 
sovereignty within themselves, were under no foreign superinten- 
dency, nor used to apply to the See of Rome to pay their homage 
to the Pope's primacy to get their metropolitans consecrated, or 
receive directions for discipline or government from thence ; and, 
which is more, neither were they declared schismatics for want of 
this deference and application." a 

The law of this country with reference to the royal supremacy 
was clearly laid down by Edward the Confessor, as follows : — 
"The king, who is the vicar of the Highest King, is ordained to 
this end, that he shall govern and rule the earthly kingdom and 
people of the Lord, and, above all things, the Holy Church, and 
that he defend the same from wrong-doers, and pluck up, destroy, 
and root out workers of mischief." b 

William the Conqueror (a.d. 1066), although he gained his 
position under the auspices and patronage of the Pope, who sent 
him the sacred standard of St. Peter to protect him in his ex- 
pedition, when he had established himself (a.d. 1076), at once 
asserted his independence of this foreign potentate. " He never," 
he said, "paid to the Bishop of Rome, nor would he pay him 
homage, because he neither paid it himself, nor did he find that 
any of his predecessors had paid it, c declaring at the same time, 
that none of the Bishops of his realm should obey the mandates 

* B. ii, cent, vii, vol. i, p. 80. London, 1780. 

b See K. Edward's Laws, c. xix. Spelman. Can. torn, i, p. 62. London, 1639. 

c See the authority cited by Hume, c. iv, an. 1076. 



53 

of the Bishop of Eome ;" and this, too, was the amhitious and 
imperious Hildebrand, Gregory VII. William permitted, how- 
ever, the Pope to pick up his " Peter's pence " in England, with 
-which he was fain obliged to be content. William asserted his 
right over the Church in a very practical manner, for he took from 
the abbey of St. Albans all its revenues "which lay between 
Barnet and London Stone." a He governed his clergy, as he did the 
rest of his subjects, with an absolute sway; and while Hildebrand 
was thundering out his anathemas against the Emperor, and 
compelling him to do dishonourable homage, our King William 
peacefully enjoyed his right of investiture, which was the subject 
of quarrel between the Pope and the Emperor. Nothing was 
transacted in the Church but by the King's directions, and he 
ordered all synodal constitutions. He set himself up against the 
Pope, by forbidding his subjects to receive their orders, or ac- 
knowledge their authority, without his permission. b 

William II. also prohibited all appeals to Rome, as " unheard 
of in the kingdom, and altogether contrary to its usages ; " and 
he, as well as his father, retained in themselves the sole power 
of investing Bishops. Archbishop Anselm was exiled because 
he obeyed the Pope without the King's consent. Eome, however, 
ivas never ceasing in its energies to obtain a supremacy, and the 
Pope found no difficulty in working on the fears of Henry I. 
This King had to contend with Anselm as to investiture of Bishops. 
The Lords and Bishops in parliament sided with the King, and the 
Pope had to compound matters with him. Stephen and Henry II. 
submitted to the Pope's authority. 

It was in the days of Henry II. that the Priesthood became 
most arrogant, and placed themselves above all civil control ; and 
at the head of these was Thomas a Becket. The contest between 
the Regal and Pontifical sway had arrived at a crisis in England, 
and it became necessary c to determine whether the King or the 

a Speed's Chronicle, 3rd edit., 16S2, bk. ix, c. ii, p. 24. 

b See Townsend's "Accusations against Popery," p. 81, reprint, 1815. 

c I propose principally to follow Hume in my narrative of these events. 
And as a general reply to Mr. Cobbett's attack on bis want of truth. I may 
.state that Hume purports to gather his facts from Matthew Paris the 
.Benedictine Monk, Fitz- Stephens, Kymer, &c, &c. 



54 

priests, particularly the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Becket, 
should be sovereign of the kingdom. From the commencement of 
his reign, Henry II., in the government of his dominions, had 
diewn a fixed purpose to repress clerical usurpations, and to 
maintain those prerogatives which had been transmitted to him by 
his predecessors. Henry appointed Thomas a Becket to several 
high offices ; first, his Chancellor, and then Archbishop of Canter- 
bury. This last appointment drew after it all the unhappy 
disagreements of this reign. No sooner was a Becket installed 
than he aspired to exercise the rights of the highest rank in 
the kingdom. He now set at defiance the King's authority, and 
placed the ecclesiastical above the civil rule. " The contending 
powers," says Hume, " appeared to be armed with their full force, 
and it was natural to expect some extraordinary event to result 
from their conflict." 

" The ecclesiastics of that age," writes Hume, " had renounced all 
immediate subordination to the magistrate : they openly pretended 
to an exemption in criminal accusations from a trial before courts 
of justice, and were gradually introducing a like exemption in 
civil causes ; spiritual penances alone could be inflicted on their 
offences ; and, as the clergy had extremely multiplied in England, 
and many of them were consequently of very low character, crimes 
of the deepest dye, murders, robberies, adulteries, rapes, were 
daily committed with impunity by the ecclesiastics. It had been 
found, for instance, on inquiry, that no less than a hundred murders 
had, since the King's accession, been perpetrated by men of that 
profession, who had never been called to account for those offences ; 
and holy orders were become a full protection for all enormities. 
A clerk in Worcestershire, having debauched a gentleman's 
daughter, had at this time proceeded to murder the father; and 
the general indignation against this crime moved the King to 
attempt the remedy of an abuse which was become so palpable, 
and to require that the clerk should be delivered Up and receive 
condign punishment from the magistrate. A Becket insisted on the 
privileges of the Church ; confined the criminal in the Bishop's 
prison, lest he should be seized by the King's officers ; maintained 
that no greater punishment could be inflicted on him than degra- 
dation ; and when the King demanded that immediately aftei 
he was degraded he should be tried by the civil power, the Primate- 



55 

asserted that it was iniquitous to try a man twice upon the same 
accusation and for the same offence." a 

All this passes for nothing with Mr. Cobbett's "reformed 
notions," since he undertook to become a Papal advocate. He 
actually tells us that "the people of England looked on a Becket as 
a martyr to their liberties as well as their religion, he having been 
barbarously murdered by ruffians sent from the King, and for 
no other cause than that he persevered in resisting an attempt to 
violate the great Charter /" b 

The murder no one can justify; nor does it make the matter less 
criminal that it was a struggle between Romanists and Papists, the 
laity and priesthood, who should rule ; but to declare that a, Becket 
was a martyr for the cause of freedom, and in defence of the 
"great Charter," is one of those bold and untruthful assertions 
peculiarly characteristic of the work now under review. 

Henry convoked an assembly of the prelates, and required 
of them to submit to " the ancient laws and customs of the 
kingdom." He defined those customs, required compliance to 
them, and put a stop to clerical usurpations, and defined the limits 
of the power of the Church; and he insisted that all clerks 
accused of any crime should be tried in the civil courts, and that 
laics should not be accused in spiritual courts except by legal and 
reputable promoters and witnesses, and that the ultimate appeal in 
spiritual cases should be to the King. These and other salutary 
regulations, known as the " Constitutions of Clarendon," put a 
stop for a time to the usurpations of the Church, which had 
threatened the total destruction of the civil power. Henry thus 
established the superiority of the civil power above the spiritual, 
and gained a signal victory over the ecclesiastics. In a.d. 
1166, Henry issued orders to his justiciaries inhibiting, under 
severe penalties, all appeals to the Pope or Archbishop, forbidding 
any one to receive mandates from them, or to apply in any case 
to their authority, declaring it treasonable to bring from either of 
them an interdict upon the kingdom; and he prescribed certain 
severe punishments to be inflicted on those who should act con- 
trary to these ordinances, and to which he compelled his subjects to 
swear obedience. These enactments were originated and enforced 

» Hume's " Hist, of England," c. xii, an. 1163. b 179. 



56 

by the sole authority of the King. The King also suspended the 
payment of " Peter's pence." A Becket alone opposed the King's 
will ; he issued a censure excommunicating the King's chief 
ministers by name, comprehending, in general, all those who 
favoured or obeyed the Constitutions of Clarendon, which the King 
had revived : these constitutions a Becket abrogated and annulled ; 
he absolved all men from their oaths which they had taken to 
observe them ; and he suspended the spiritual thunder over Henry 
himself, only that the Prince might avoid the blow by a timely 
repentance. It is needless to dwell on the tragic fate of a Becket. 
"Whether the murder was directly instigated by Henry is no part of 
my enquiry. They were all Romanists in those days ; a house 
divided against itself; the civil and ecclesiastical elements warring 
against each other. The result, however, worked on the fears and 
superstitions of Henry; and, in his real or affected remorse, he 
cast himself at the feefc of the Pope, and became his slave and tool, 
and he subjected his body to be scourged by monks. It is this 
same a Becket whom Mr. Cobbett holds up as a patron of freedom 
and protector of the great Charter of our liberties ! It is to those 
days of clerical despotism that he points as the days of freedom 
and prosperity of England ! 

The extent of the usurped power exercised by the Popes may be 
exemplified in the fact that Adrian III., an Englishman, who then 
filled the Papal chair, issued a bull, by virtue of an assumed 
Apostolic authority, claiming all Christian kingdoms as belong- 
ing to the patrimony of St. Peter; under which authority he 
handed over the whole of Ireland to Henry II., and the Irish 
people to his rule, who, he declared (as a sure mark of their 
heresy and infidelity), had never acknowledged any submission to 
the See of Home. He exhorted the King to invade Ireland 
"in order to extirpate the vice and wickedness of the natives," 
and oblige them to pay yearly for every house a penny to the See 
of Rome. The Pope gave Henry entire right and authority over 
that island, and commanded all the inhabitants to obey him as their 
Sovereign. Henry, in 1172, carried out these instructions by force 
of arms; and, in turn, Henry entered into a compact with the 
Pope, by which he agreed to pardon all the banished adherents of 
a Becket, and submitted to allow all appeals in ecclesiastical causes to 
be carried to the Court of Rome. Upon signing these and other 



57 

concessions, Henry received absolution from the legate of Pope 
Alexander III., with a confirmation of the grant of Ireland made 
by Pope Adrian III., who was then dead. Thus did Ireland 
become subject to England, and, for the first time, to the spiritual 
dominion of the Bishop of Home. 

So completely did Henry acknowledge the ecclesiastical autho- 
rity of the Court of Rome in temporal disputes, that he applied to 
the Pope, as his superior Lord, to excommunicate his enemies; 
and, by thes^ censures, to reduce to obedience his children who had 
rebelled against him. a 

The priests of this period worked on the superstitions of the 
people to an unprecedented extent. 

" Among their other inventions," writes Hume, " to obtain money 
the clergy had inculcated the necessity of penance as an atonement 
for sin ; and, having again introduced the practice of paying them 
large sums as a commutation or species of atonement for the remis- 
sion of those penances, the sins of the people, by these means, had 
become a revenue to the priests ; and the King, computed that by 
this invention alone, they levied more money upon his subjects 
than flowed by all the funds and taxes into the Royal Exchequer. 

" That he might ease the people of so heavy and arbitrary an 
imposition, Henry required that a civil officer of his appointment 
should be present in all ecclesiastical courts, and should, for the 
future, give his consent to every composition which was made with 
sinners for their spiritual offences." 

With reference to the luxury of the monks of this age, Hume 
recounts an anecdote told by Geraldus Cambrensis, that the monks 
and priors of St. Swithin complained to Henry in the most abject 
manner, prostrating themselves before him, that their Bishop and 
Abbot had cut off three dishes from their table. " How many has 
he left you ?" asked the King. " Ten only," replied the monks. 
u I myself," exclaimed the King, " never have more than three, 
and I enjoin your Bishop to reduce you to the same number." 

It was during the reign of the cruel and cowardly King 
John that the Pope's arrogant assumptions gained their highest 
pitch. Pope Innocent ruled supreme in England; he placed 

a Epist. Petri Poles, cpist. 136, in Biblioth. Patr. torn, ssiv, p. 1048, quoted 
by Hume. 



58 

the country under an interdict. John had claimed the right 
to nominate a successor to the See of Canterbury on the 
death of Hubert, a.d. 1207. He nominated John Gray, Bishop 
of Norwich. The monks of Canterbury chose Reginald, and 
appealed to Rome, and, in return, John drove them out of Can- 
terbury for their impudence, and confiscated their lands and 
effects. The Pope, however, rejected both candidates, and nomi- 
nated Langton. John threatened Langton with the penalties of 
high treason if he set foot in England ; he wrote a sharp letter 
to the Pope, accused him of tyrannical conduct, and told him that 
he would suffer no appeals to be made to Rome. Had John acted 
up to his determination, England might have been saved much 
misery and degradation. The Pope was, of the two, more vigorous 
and self-willed. He induced the Bishops of London, Ely, and 
Worcester to lay the whole country under an interdict. And this 
they did in March, 1208. 

"The sentence of interdict," says Hume, "was, at that time, 
the great instrument of vengeance and policy employed by the 
Court of Rome; it was denounced against sovereigns for the 
lightest offences, and it made the guilt of one person involve the 
ruin of millions, even in their spiritual and eternal welfare. The 
execution of it was calculated to strike the senses in the highest 
degree, and to operate with irresistible force on the superstitious 
minds of the people. The nation was of a sudden deprived of all 
exterior exercise of its religion ; the altars were despoiled of their 
ornaments ; the crosses, the reliques, the images, the statues of 
the saints were laid on the ground, and, as if the air itself was 
profaned and might pollute them by its contact, the priests care- 
fully covered them up, even from their own approach and venera- 
tion. The use of bells entirely ceased in all the churches, the 
bells themselves were removed from the steeples, and laid on the 
ground with the other sacred utensils. Mass was celebrated with 
shut doors, and none but the priests were admitted to that holy 
institution. The laity partook of no religious rite, except baptism 
to newborn infants and the communion to the dying ; the dead 
were not interred in consecrated ground ; they were thrown into 
ditches or buried in common fields, and their obsequies were not 
attended with prayers or any hallowed ceremony. Marriage was 
celebrated in the churchyards ; and, that every action in life might 



59 

bear the marks of this dreadful situation, the people were pro- 
hibited the use of meat, as in Lent or times of the highes -1 
penance ; were debarred from all pleasures and entertainments 
and even to salute each other, or as much as shave their beards, 01 
give any decent attention to their person and apparel. Every cir- 
cumstance carried symptoms of the deepest distress, and of the most 
immediate apprehension of divine vengeance and indignation." 

The effect of this interdict, which was followed by an excommu- 
nication of John, may be judged from the fact that Geoffrey 
Archdeacon of Norwich, while sitting in the Court of Exchequer 
in his judicial capacity, hearing of the excommunication, imme- 
diately left the court, fearing to serve under a King while under 
the ban of the Church. This interdict lasted six years. The Pope 
charged Philip, King of France, to attack and ravage England, 
which was given to Philip if he could conquer the country. The 
Pope, however, sent a messenger to John, and induced the King, by 
promise of protection, to submit to him, and in doing so he 
would remove the interdict. John, therefore, surrendered his 
kingdom to the Pope, to avoid falling into the hands of France ; 
and the Pope, in turn, threatened to excommunicate the King of 
France if he presumed to interfere in what now belonged to the 
" Holy See." John retained his kingdom on payment of an 
annual fine to the Pope. The Pope's legate, to exhibit the triumph 
of sacerdotal power over John, and as an earnest of the subjection 
of the kingdom, trampled under foot the first payment of the 
tribute money. John promised in writing to allow Langton to 
take possession of the See of Canterbury (a.d. 1213) ; he recalled 
the banished clergy, monks, &c, and returned their properties and 
made satisfaction for the injury sustained. But all this did not 
transpire without the solemn protest of Parliament, which offered 
to defend the country against the temporal jurisdiction of the Pope. 

The nomination of Bishops had been a prerogative of the crown; 
the Pope wrested this right first from Henry L, and then again 
from John, and he reserved to himself the right of presentation to 
all benefices. 

Mr. Cobbett asks how all this " could be degrading to this 
nation, when the same thing existed with regard to all other 
nations !" Because all other nations were degraded, is that any 
reason that England should be placed on a level with them? 



60 

Before I pass from John to his successors, I must say a word or 
two on the Magna Charta, to which Mr. Cobbett has repeatedly 
recurred, as the great gift to this country by our popish ancestors, 
and for which we should ever hold them in grateful remembrance, 
as the great source and guardian of freedom. Surely Mr. Cobbett 
must have forgotten his history. Did he not know (and if he did 
not, let me here record again the fact,) that the Pope, by bull, 
repudiated and condemned that Charter ; pronounced it, in all its 
clauses, null and void ; forbade the King to observe it ; inhibited the 
barons (who, being instigated by the devil, he said, had extorted 
these concessions in degradation of the crown,) from requiring its 
execution ; and suspended the Primate Langton for refusing to ex- 
communicate them on this account; and absolved the King and all 
his subjects from all oaths which they had taken to preserve the 
Charter, and excommunicated every one who should maintain it ? a 
To Langton, indeed, we are deeply indebted for the noble 
part which he took in obtaining the Charter from the King, and 
for his yet more noble conduct in maintaining it against the 
Pope, and refusing to put the excommunication in force. But to 
the Eoman Catholic religion, as acting under its acknowledged 
head, our obligation, on the score of the Magna Charta, is nil. If 
the Pope had had his wish, that " great source and guardian of our 
freedom" would have been cancelled. Surely Mr. Cobbett was 
writing in irony when he tells us, that " the Magna Charta had 
been trampled under foot from the moment the Pope's supremacy 
was assailed." b Another Pope, Clement V., absolved Edward I. 
from his solemn engagement to observe that Charter, pronouncing 
that, if the King had sworn to observe it, he had sworn previously 
to maintain the rights of the crown; to those rights, the Charter 
was (he said) derogatory, and to that prior oath regard must first 
be paid. Clement, therefore, released Edward from all promises 
prejudicial to his ancient prerogatives. The Eoman Catholic 
readers and admirers of Mr. Cobbett will scarcely excuse him for 
keeping from their knowledge the part the Roman Church and 
the Pope took m this transaction. But were not these pro- 
ceedings quite consistent with all other assumptions of that Church, 
when freedom and liberty of conscience are at stake ? 

a Hume, for his authority for this, quotes Matthew Paris and Rymer. 
b 114. c Collier's " Eccl. Hist.,'' vol. i, p. 499. London, 170S. 



61 

Henry III. (a.d. 1216) swore fealty to the Pope, and renewed 
the homage which his father had already paid. And the Protector, 
Hubert de Burgh, applied to the Pope to issue his bull, declaring 
Henry to be of full age, and entitled to exercise in person all the 
acts of royalty. During this reign the Pope drew from this country 
£70,000 sterling, an immense sum in those days, yet Mr. Cobbett 
would have us believe that the Pope's sway was purely spiritual ! 
The Pope still reserved to himself the nomination to all benefices. 
The best livings were filled by Italians and other foreign clergy, 
equally unskilled in, and averse to, the laws and constitutions of 
England. Many of these Italians never came to England, but, 
nevertheless, received their revenues. Henry III. and the nobility of 
England complained to Pope Innocent IV. ; they represented, among 
many other grievances, that the benefices of the Italian clergy in 
England had been estimated, and were found to amount to 60,000 
marks a year, a sum which exceeded the annual revenue of the crown. 

" Avarice," writes Hume, " more than the ambition of the See of 
Rome, in this age, was the great ground of complaint." Every- 
thing was become venal in the Romish tribunals ; simony was 
openly practised; no favours, and even no justice, could be obtained 
without a bribe ; the highest bidder was sure to have the preference, 
without regard either to the merits of the person or of the cause. 
Pope Innocent IV. exacted the revenues of all vacant benefices, 
the twentieth of all ecclesiastical revenues without exception, the 
third of such as exceeded a hundred marks a year, and a half of 
such as were possessed by non-residents. He claimed the goods 
of all intestate clergymen, he pretended a title to inherit all money 
gotten by usury, he levied benevolences on the people, and when 
the King, contrary to his usual practice, prohibited these exactions, 
he threatened to pronounce against him the same censures which 
he had emitted against the Emperor Frederic. The Bishop of 
Hereford, who resided at Rome, drew bills for the service of the 
Pope on the clergy of England for 150,540 marks, which they 
were afterwards compelled to pay. These exactions continued 
from year to year, and the Pope's Nuncio held powers of sus- 
pension and excommunication against all of the clergy who refused 
to comply with his demands. a The Bishops and Clergy rebelled, 

a See Hume's " Hist, of England," c. xii, an. 1253, and he quotes Matthew 
Paris and others for his authority. 



62 

but, being threatened with excommunication, were compelled to 
submit. Alexander, the successor of Innocent IV., became even 
more urgent, and threatened to place the country under an inter- 
dict if the supplies were not forthcoming. The Barons of England 
interposed, expelled the Italian ecclesiastics, and confiscated their 
benefices, and seemed determined to maintain the liberties and pri- 
vileges of the Church, but they were not supported by the King. In 
fact, papal interference and papal usurpations were the greatest 
sources of misery and discord in this country. It was at this 
period, also, that the several orders of monks became, as Hume 
expresses it, " a band of regular troops, in garrison, of the Romish 
Church." 

Edward I. passed several statutes, restraining the exactions of 
Rome, and also the appointment of successors to benefices before 
they became vacant, which right the Court of Rome claimed. a 
He declared that "these oppressions should not be suffered in any 
manner ;" but he, himself, did not hesitate to make large levie: on 
the clergy, and plundered the monasteries and churches of their 
plate and money; but, to his everlasting praise, passed the 
Mortmain Act, which restrained the acquisition of land by the 
Church. Rome, however, having got a hold on the constitution 
(for the tribute levied in the time of King John was continued), 
clung to it like a horse-leech, and was sucking out of the patient 
its very life-blood. In the reign of Edward III., the Parliament 
declared that the taxes levied by the Pope exceeded five times 
those which were paid to the King ; and he caused to be passed an 
Act, called the " Statute of Provisors," in which he recapitulated 
the abuses of the Church, and declared himself bound by his 
oath to see the laws kept, and that " elections, presentments, 
and collections of benefices should stand in the right of the 
crown, or of any of his subjects, as they had formerly enjoyed 
them, notwithstanding any provision from Rome ; " and he forbade 
the Pope to present to benefices in England (the vacant bishoprics 
in England had then been filled with Italians and relatives of 
Pope Clement VI.). Edward declared that he would not submit 
to the usurpation, and prevented such from taking possession. 
The Act declared " that the Church was founded in a state of 

a See specially 25 Edward I., c. i. 



63 

prelacy in the kingdom of England by the King and his pro- 
genitors, and the counts, barons, and nobles of this kingdom, and 
their ancestors, for themselves and for their people, conformably 
to the law of God." And thus was again restored to the State 
its legitimate right, according to the ecclesiastical custom of the 
early Church, of appointment to all ecclesiastical offices ; and the 
summoning of Councils was again vested in lay hands. The 
Parliament petitioned the King, that he would employ no church- 
man in any office of state, and desired that the papal power should 
be expelled by force. They declared that the usurpations of the 
Pope "were the cause of all the plagues, injurious famines, and 
poverty of the realm, and more destructive to it than all the wars." a 
Surely Mr. Cobbett had read history to little purpose, when he 
declared that the Reformation was the cause of all the ills which 
had ever visited our country. Edward passed another Act, b for- 
bidding all appeals and suits to be instituted beyond seas, the 
punishment for which was outlawry. These Acts proving in- 
effectual to repress the rapacity of the Roman Church, Richard II. 
passed an Act c confirming, and ordering to be put in execution, with 
additional powers, all previous statutes on the subject ; and in 
the seventh year of his reign another Act was passed, prohibiting 
aliens holding benefices, &c, without the King's licence, and the 
King bound himself not to grant licences to foreigners; and by 
the 12 Richard II., c. xv, incumbents were prohibited from 
obtaining a confirmation of their titles from Rome, and all causes 
relating to presentments, &c, were to be tried in England : those 
who obtained these foreign appointments were called "provisors." 
By 16 Richard II., c. v, it was solemnly declared, that the Crown 
of England was, and had been, and should be, free of subjection to 
the Bishop of Rome, and the lay Lords and Commons resolved to 
die in defence of the rights of the Crown against the Pope ; and 
the spiritual Lords declared themselves bound to the King by their 
allegiance. By this Act it was declared that, whosoever contra- 
vened this law of the land was to be put out of the protection of 
the King, and his goods were to be forfeited and his person 
imprisoned. The writ that was to be prescribed on such occasions 
commenced with the words pr&munire facias, hence the statute 
was called the " Statute of Praemunire;" and the King and Par- 
» Hume, c. xvi, an. 1377. *> 38 Edwd. III., c. i. c 3 Itichd. II., c. iii. 



64 

liament made general remonstrance to the Court of Rome, against, 
what they termed, "its horrible excesses." 

The Cistercian monks having procured bulls of dispensation 
from Rome, Henry IV. thereupon passed an Act a declaring 
" those bulls to be of no force ; and if any put them in execution, 
or procured other such bulls, they were to be proceeded against 
upon the statute against provisors ; " and, by the 7 Henry IV., 
c. viii, any licences which had been granted by the King for the 
executing any of the Pope's bulls, were declared of no force to 
prejudice any incumbent in his right. The perseverance of Rome 
in her aggression required a confirmation of all former Acts. 5 

These energetic measures of the King caused a sensible decay 
of ecclesiastical authority in this country; and the preaching of 
Wickliffe, in the year 1399 (who taught nearly the same doctrines 
as the Reformers did in the sixteenth century), began to make the 
papacy tremble for its existence. 

But the King, Henry IV., was not the less PopisJi, for he 
obtained an Act c by which any heretic who relapsed, or refused 
to abjure his opinions, was to be delivered over to the secular arm 
by the Bishop or his commissaries, to be committed to the flames 
by the civil magistrate before the whole people. And to satisfy 
the Church, and to shew that he was in earnest, he ordered a 
Lollard to be burnt. 

And while Henry V. passed a law d declaring the Pope's bulls 
and licences void, the Prelates were not the less persecuting, as 
witness the cruel fate of Lord Cobham, who was condemned to 
the flames for his alleged heretical opinions. 

In the reign of Henry VI., the Parliament persisted in en- 
forcing the statutes against the usurpations of Rome, and the 
Commons petitioned that no foreigner should be capable of any 
Church preferment, and that patrons might present anew in cases 
of non-residence of any members; and when Pope Martin required 
the Archbishop of Canterbury to seek a repeal of what he called 
the "execrable" statute of Praemunire, the Archbishop refused, 
and, being openly supported by the University of Oxford, the 
nobility and the Bishops, the statute remained unrepealed. 6 The 

a 2 Henry IV., c. iv. b 17 Henry IV., c. xviii. 

c 2 Henry IV., c. vli. d 4 Henry V., c. iv, 

e See Blackst one's Commentaries, b. iv, c. viii. 



65 

King, however, acting under the fear of threats from the Pope, 
eluded these petitions ; for Pope Martin wrote to him a severe 
letter against the Statute of Provisors, which he called an 
-abominable law, that would infallibly damn every one who 
observed it. a 

To Henry VIII. is attributed the merit (but according to 
Mr. Cobbett, the mortal and unpardonable sin of schism, "by 
butcheries, burnings, and other tortures,") of having restored to 
England the original and legitimate authority and position of 
her monarch. Before, however, we can sufficiently appreciate the 
benefits resulting from Henry's legislation with regard to the 
Papal usurpation in this country, we must fully understand the 
power, position, and actions of the Papacy. When Henry came 
to the throne, the Popes had claimed, and continued to claim, the 
power of excommunicating and deposing kings and princes, and of 
absolving their subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and of con- 
fiscating and giving away kingdoms at their pleasure ; and these acts 
they exercised through an assumed Apostolic power vested in them 
as the alleged successors of St. Peter. The preamble of the bull, 
issued by Sixtus V., against Henry, King of Navarre, gives a good 
example of this assumed power : — 

" The authority given to Peter and his successors, by the 
immense power of the Eternal King, excels all the powers of 
earthly kings and princes. It passes uncontrollable sentence upon 
all ; and if it find any of them resisting God's ordinance, it takes 
a more severe vengeance on them; and casting down the most 
powerful from their thrones, tumbles them down into the lowest 
parts as the ministers of the proud Lucifer." 

The Canon Law was then in full force in this country. 

Cranmer undertook to examine this law, and made a collection 
of passages for the purpose of showing the necessity of re 
forming it. b 

The following is a copy of some of the extracts made by him ; 
and which, it should be observed, are also to be found at the pre- 
sent day in this same law of the Roman Church, binding on every 
single member of it as such : — 

a Quoted by Hume from Burnet's Records. 

•» See Burnet's "History of the Reformation." Records, No. xxviii. vol. vi, 
b. iii. Nares' edition, 1830. 



66 

' u He that acknowledges not himself to be under the Bishop of 
Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome is ordained by God to have 
primacy over all the world, is a heretic, and cannot be saved, and 
is not of the flock of Christ. 

" Princes' laws, if they be against the canons and decrees of the 
Bishop of Rome, are of no force or strength. 

" All the decrees of the Bishop of Rome ought to be kept per- 
jjetually by every man, without any repugnancy, as God's word 
spoken by the mouth of Peter ; and whosoever doth not receive 
them, neither the Catholic faith avails them, nor the Four 
Evangelists, but they blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and shall have 
no forgiveness. 

" All kings, bishops, and noblemen that believe or suffer the 
Bishop of Rome's decrees in any thing to be violate, be accursed, and 
for ever culpable before God, as transgressors of the Catholic faith. 

" The Bishop of Rome is not bound to any decrees, but he may 
compel as well the clergy as laymen to receive his decrees and 
canon law. 

" The Bishop of Rome hath authority to judge all men, and 
specially to define the articles of faith, and that without any Council, 
and may absolve them that the Council has damned ; but no man 
hath authority to judge him, nor to meddle with anything that he 
has judged, — neither emperor, king, people, nor the clergy ; and 
it is not lawful for any man to dispute his power. 

11 The Bishop of Rome may excommunicate emperors and princes, 
depose them from their states, and absolve their subjects from their 
oaths and obedience to them, and so constrain them to rebellion. 

" The Emperor is the Bishop of Rome's subject, and the Bishop 
of Rome may revoke the Emperor's sentence in temporal causes. 

" It belongs to the Bishop of Rome to allow or disallow the 
Emperor after he is elected ; and he may translate the Empire 
from one region to another. 

" Nothing may be done against him who appeals to Rome. 

" The Bishop of Rome may be judged of none, but of God 
only; for, although he neither regard his own salvation, nor no 
man's else, but draw down with himself innumerable people by 
heaps unto hell, yet may no mortal man in this world presume to 
reprehend him ; forasmuch as he is called God, he may not be 
judged by man, for God may be judged by no man. 



67 

" The Bishop of Rome may open and shut heaven unto men. 

" It appertain eth to the Bishop of Borne to judge which oaths 
ought to be kept, and which not. 

" The Bishop of Rome is judge in temporal things, and hath 
two swords, — spiritual and temporal. 

" Laymen may not be judges to any of the clergy, nor compel 
them to pay their undoubted debts ; but the bishops only must be 
their judges. 

u A layman may commit his cause to a spiritual judge ; but 
one of the clergy may not commit his cause to a temporal judge 
without the consent of the bishop. 

" All they that make or write any statutes contrary to the 
liberties of the Church; and all princes, rulers, raid counsellors 
where such statutes are made or such customs observed; and all 
the judges and others that put the same in execution- and, where 
such statutes and customs have been made and observed of old 
time, all they that put them not out of their books, are excom- 
municate ; and that so grievously that they cannot be absolved but 
only by the Bishop of Rome. 

" It is not lawful for any layman to lay any imposition of taxes, 
subsidies, or any charges upon the clergy. 

" Princes ought to obey bishops and the decrees of the Church, 
and to submit their heads unto the bishops, and not to be judge 
over the bishops ; for the bishops ought to be judged by no 
layman. 

"All manner of causes, whatsoever they be, spiritual or temporal, 
ought to be determined and judged by the clergy. 

" The Bishop of Rome may compel by an oath all rulers and 
other people to observe, and cause to be observed, whatsoever the 
See of Rome shall ordain concerning heresy and the fautors 
of heresy ; and who will not obey he may deprive them of their 
dignities. 

" We obtain remission of sins by observing certain feasts, 
and certain pilgrimages in the jubilee and other prescribed times, 
by virtue of the Bishop of Rome's pardons. 

" He is no man-slayer that slayeth a man which is excom- 
municate. 

" A penitent person can have no remission of his sin but by 
■supplication of the priests." 

f 2 



Conceive for one moment all this to have heen the law of this land 
when Mr. Cohbett was editing his " Political Eegister !" Never- 
theless, this was the state of the case at the period of which Mr. 
Cobbett was writing, and a state of happiness he affects to covet. 
Any one at all acquainted with the history and writings of Mr. 
Cobbett could not bring himself to believe that a man who had been 
all his life declaiming against tyranny, oppression, and corruption 
could have become the champion of Pre-Eeformation Popery. Yes ; 
Popery as it existed in its worst phase, when this Canon Law was 
in actual force, in the days- of monkish barbarism and of relentless 
persecutions ; Popery, with all its superstitions and frauds ; the 
same Popery he had himself so ruthlessly condemned. And to 
hear such a one lamenting the freedom of thought and action con- 
sequent on the Eeformation, compared with " the (alleged) ease and 
happiness and harmony enjoyed so abundantly and for so many 
ages by our Catholic forefathers " a under this Canon Law and 
priestly rule, is something beyond our comprehension ! 

Henry VIIL expunged this Canon Law from our statute books, 
There was then existing another crying evil, which Henry com^ 
pletely reformed. Henry found the Church government supreme 
over the civil authority. b Each priest, in his district, assumed 
powers superior to those of the secular rulers. The clergy asserted 
a complete immunity from the administration of secular justice. 
They were only amenable to the Church, and the courts of the 
King could not call them personally to account for any enormity. 
Whatever crimes they might perpetrate, whatever disorders they 
might commit, whatever evil example they might set before the 
community, they could laugh to scorn the powers of national law 
as long as they enjoyed the Papal favour. Not only were they thus 
secure in their own persons, but they were the guardians of all the 
villains in the land;, for every church,. with a certain space around 
it, was a sanctuary of refuge ; and if the thief, the murderer, or the 
robber could get within the line of protection, the officers of justice 
were set at nought; and thus the priests became the standing 
obstacles to right, and the safeguards of the grossest iniquity. 
This privilege was greatly restricted by Henry VIIL, and totally 

a 4. 

b I am now extensively transferring to these pages from my " Henry YIIL, 
an Historical Sketch of the Eeformation." 



6*9 

abolished by James I. 'Out Henry VII. presented urgent petitions 
to the Pope to do away with this nuisance, but without success. a 

The statute 1 Henry VII. c. 4, was passed to punish lewd priests 
and monks. Before this, even bishops had no power to punish 
priests, though convicted of adultery or incest. In his first Parlia- 
ment Henry VII. made another step in advance to mitigate the 
evil by lessening the privileges of the clergy. He enacted that all 
clerks convicted should be branded on the hand: this did not prove 
a sufficient restraint. It was further enacted that all murderers 
and robbers should be denied the benefit of the clergy ; but the 
Lords (governed by priestly influence) specially exempted from the 
operation of the first law all such as were within the holy orders of 
bishop, priest, or deacon; and the second was postponed until the 
following session before it was allowed to come into operation. 
Priests, considering their liberties were in danger, rose up in arms, 
declaring that their privileges were invaded, and through their 
influence the statute was not revived by the fifth Parliament. The 
Abbot of Winchelcomb declared, in a sermon delivered at Paul's 
Cross, that the Act was " contrary to the law of God, and to the 
liberties of the Holy Church ; and that all who assented to it, as 
well spiritual as temporal persons, had, by so doing, incurred the 
censures of the Church ! " And the subject created a great dis- 
turbance both in and out of the House of Commons. 

Henry " reformed this altogether ! " and the priests were made 
subject to the civil law of the land; notwithstanding, Mr. Cobbett 
affects to declare that the Pre- Reformation state of society was all 
that could possibly be desired ! 

The country was overrun by a swarm of drones, who were living 
on the fat of the land without doing auy compensating labour, 
and leading an idle, dissolute, and, in too many cases, an abandoned 

a Stowe, the annalist, gives the following account of the extent to which 
this privilege of asylum was carried :— " Unthrifts riot and run in debt 
upon the boldness of these places : yea, and rich men run thither with poor 
men's goods ; there they build ; there they spend, and bid their creditors go 
whistle them. Men's wives run thither with their husbands' plate, and say 
they dare not abide with their husbands for beating. Thieves bring thither 
their stolen goods, and live thereon. There devise they new robberies 
nightly ; they steal out and rob, and rave, and kill, and come in again, as 
though these places gave them not only a safeguard for the harm they have 
done, but a licence to do more." 



70 

life; but they were, by Henry's vigorous measures, either wholly 
suppressed or brought within the restraints of civilized society. a 

Besides these evils, the supremacy of the Pope operated directly 
upon the wealth of the country. Enormous sums were annually 
carried out of the kingdom to Rome, in the shape of Peter's pence, 
first-fruits, offerings, annates, fees, and more particularly in causes 
carried to the appellate jurisdiction of Rome. Mr. Cobbett gravely 
tells us, that this money, extracted from England, " was not 
thrown away. It was so much given for the preservation of unity 
of faith, peace, goodwill and charity, and morality." b Credulous, 
innocent Mr. William Cobbett ! ! 

Matthew Paris and Fieury give us a sad picture of the miseries 
entailed by this system. The English presented petitions to the 
Pope to mitigate the evil ; and, first, Matthew Paris records that — 
" The extortions and abuses becoming so oppressive and un- 
bearable the nobles appealed to the Papal Court for redress, com- 
plaining, among other things, that all the best benefices were 
given to Italians, who did not know the language of the country. 
1 But now behold,' they exclaimed, ' in addition to the aforesaid 
subsidies, the Italians, whose number is now infinite, are enriched 
in England by you and your predecessors, who have no considera- 
tion for us in churches ; leaving the above mentioned religious 
persons, whom they ought to defend, defenceless, having no cure 
of souls, but 'permitting rapacious wolves to disperse the flock and 
seize the sheep.' " 

One of their grievances is thus specially referred to : — 

" Also it is aggrieved in the general taxes collected and imposed 
ivithout the consent and will of the King, against the appeal and 
opposition of the King's Commissioners and all England." 

Matthew Paris gives us the Pope's answer : — 

" The Lord Pope, gathering courage from the past to trample 
under foot the poor English, imperiously, and even more im- 
periously than usual, demanded of the English prelates, that all 
the beneficed clergy in England who resided on their livings should 
confer one-third part of their livings on the Lord Pope ; and that 
those who did not reside should grant one-half." c 

a The Dissolution of the Monasteries will form the subject of another 
chapter. 

b 90, c Matthew Paris, (l Historia Angliae," p. 716. Edit. 1640. 



71 

Floury, in his " Ecclesiastical History,"* says, " England, 
fatigued and exhausted by Eome's exactions, began to speak and 
complain like Balaam's ass overpowered with blows." The same 
historian, Fleury, further informs us that, " The Pope, annoyed at 
the firmness with which the Archbishop Serval refused to confer 
the best benefices of his Church on unworthy and unknown 
(indignes et inconnus) Italians, caused him to be excommunicated 
by bell, book, and candle, in order to intimidate him by this de- 
grading censure." 

England afforded to the Popes a rich prize, a golden harvest ; 
it was to them, as Innocent IY. testified, " a very garden of delights 
and an inexhaustible well." b 

Such was the state of things when Henry VIII. came to the 
throne of England. He ascended that throne under the patronage 
of the Pope of Eome, and shortly afterwards obtained the title 
from him of " Defender of the Faith." He left it under the ban 
of his curse and excommunication, not because he had changed his 
religion, but because he refused to acknowledge the Pope to have 
a supreme power in these realms; — because he re- asserted the 
dignity belonging to the title of " King of England," as supreme 
ruler of this realm; — because he deprived the Pope of his op- 
portunity of plundering, and his liberty or power of working on the 
feelings and fears of the people. 

Henry was a great Eeformer, a political and social reformer ; 
he prepared the way for that great religious reformation which 
followed. He ploughed up the ground, rooted up the weeds, and 
prepared the ground for the seeds sown by Edward ; the earth was 
fertilised by the blood of the Martyrs ; the young grain survived the 
devastations of Mary's reign, and flourished under the fostering 
care of Elizabeth. 

Henry VIII. freed this country from priest-rule and its con- 
sequent and inseparable corruptions, not, as alleged, by any sudden 
action or caprice, but by well considered and well digested salutary 

* Lib. 82. Nismes, 1779. 

b Matthew Paris, " Historia Anglias," p. 705. Edit. 1640. Rapin tells us 
that from the second year of Henry VII. to the rejection of the Papal 
authority by Henry VIII , no less a sum than £167,000 had been pai'l to 
the See of Eome for first-fruits, palls, bulls, &c. 



72 

laws. One of our historians a has very aptly observed that the 
cause which Henry was impelled onwards to lead was — the cause 
of human nature, human reason, human freedom, and human 
happiness. It was an effort to rescue England, and consequently 
mankind, and the mind and worship of religion itself, from 
sacerdotal despotism ; to liberate society from the oppressing and 
debilitating dominion of dictating and inquisitorial priests, in- 
truding both into domestic and civil concerns, interposing them- 
selves between the Creator and his creatures. Though Henry did 
not foresee or even contemplate the consequences of his acts, 
reformation was effected step by step, by carefully weighed Acts of 
Parliament, all which were prepared, if not by himself manually, 
certainly under his dictation and supervision. 

The first step taken by Henry to bring about this great reforma- 
tion was, to clip the wings of the clergy. In 1529 he mitigated 
one great abuse, by causing an Act b to be passed by which 
spiritual persons were debarred from having pluralities of livings 
and from taking lands to farm. The evil of concentration of 
livings and lands in the clergy or priests was greatly on the 
increase; foreign priests, nominated by the Pope, enjoyed the fat 
of the land, while they held his dispensation to be absentees. 
They were engaged in trade, in farming, in tanning, in brewing, in 
doing anything but the duties which they were paid for doing; 
while they purchased dispensations for non-residence at their 
benefices. In some cases, single priests held as many as eight 
or nine livings. 

Henry completely swept away this abuse ; and the Act declared 
that if any person should obtain from the Court of Eome, or 
elsewhere, any manner of licence or dispensation to be non-resident 
at his cure or benefice, he should be fined. Here was a bold and 
prudent step in the proper direction of reform. 

In the 23rd year of his reign, 1531-2, an Act c was passed for 
the restraint of all appeals to the Court of Rome. The evils 
resulting from appeals in spiritual and temporal matters became 
intolerable. The enormous expense and delays, not to mention the 
indignity offered to our courts of law, the Parliament, and King, 

a Sharon Turner's " Modern History of England, ' vol. ii. pp. 355, 356. 
London, 1835. 

b 21 Henry VILL, c. xiii. (1529.) « 23 Henry VIII., c. xii. 



73 

arising from this usurpation of power by a foreign prince, affected 
all branches of society. 

The Act declared : — 

" From sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it was 
manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England was 
an empire, and had been so accepted in the world ; governed by 
one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of 
the imperial crown of the same, unto whom a body politic, composed 
of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in terms, and by names 
of spirituality and temporality, been bounden and owen to bear^ 
next to God, a natural and humble obedience." 

And then, after pointing out the evils, delays, expenses, and 
annoyances resulting from this system of appeals to a foreign 
Court, it was by this Act further provided, that all causes deter- 
minable by spiritual or temporal jurisdiction should be adjudged 
within the King's authority and jurisdiction in the realm ; and it 
was further enacted, that whosoever procured from the See of 
Rome any appeals, processes, sentences, &c, should incur the 
forfeiture of praemunire, established by the Act 16 Richard II. 
c. v. 

Let Mr. Cobbett impute what motive he will to Henry and his 
Parliament, had the evils existed in his days he would have been 
the foremost to cry for a reform ; for no one can deny the wisdom 
or the absolute necessity of this enactment. 

By another Act, passed in the same year, a " for the submission 
of the clergy and restraint of appeals," it was declared, that the 
clergy should not enact any constitutions or ordinances without 
the King's assent ; and all convocations should be assembled only 
by the King's writ ; and all appeals in spiritual matters should be 
according to the statute last mentioned. 

By the next statute, 5 all fees theretofore payable to the Pope of 
Rome on appointment of bishops, and for bulls, palliums, &c, 
were cleanly swept away ; and it was declared, that no man should 
be presented by the See of Rome for the dignity of an archbishop 
or bishop, nor should annates or first-fruits be paid to the same See. 
This Act was eventually passed on a petition of a convocation of 
bishops and clergy. The abstraction of these fees robbed the clergy, 

a 23 Henry YIII., c. xix. b Ibid. c. xx. 



74 

and that was sufficient to rouse their opposition. It deprived 
them of a portion of their incomes, which was transferred to the 
Bishop of Rome. It is a fact worthy of remark, but wholly sup- 
pressed by Mr. Cobbett, that the first active movement towards a 
separation from Eome originated with the Romish clergy themselves. 
Their petition to Parliament to remove this tax upon their incomes 
concluded with the following prayer : a " May it please your 
Highness to ordain in this present Parliament, that the obedience 
of your Highness and of the people be withdrawn from the See of 
Rome." And this was during the primacy of "Wareham. The 
petition of the clergy was agreed to 15th May, 1532. 

The next Act b was all-important. It recites that this country 
had been " greatly decayed and impoverished by intolerable ex- 
actions of great sums of money as had been claimed and taken, 
and continually claimed to be taken, out of this realm by the 
Bishop of Rome and his See, in pensions, causes, Peter's pence, 
procurations, fruits, suits for provisions, and expedition of bulls for 
archbishoprics and bishoprics, and for delegates and rescripts in 
causes of contentions and appeals, jurisdictions legantine, and also 
for dispensations, and other infinite sorts of bulls, breeves, and 
instruments of sundry natures, names, and kinds, in great num- 
bers, heretofore practised and obtained otherwise than by the laws 
and customs of the realm ; the specialities thereof being over long, 
large in number," says this enactment, " and too tedious particu- 
larly to be inserted" in the Act. All these, — and this simple 
recital from the Act of Parliament, gives us some idea of the extent 
of the abuse then existing, and " set up by a person," as the Act 
continues, " abusing and beguiling the King's subjects, pretending 
and persuading them that he hath power to dispense with all 
human laws and customs of all realms, to the great derogation of 
the imperial crown and authority " — all these were cleared away ; 
and the statute declared that no impositions whatever should be 
paid to the Bishop of Rome. All abbeys were also relieved from 
payment of pensions to the See of Rome, and they were not 
allowed to accept any constitutions thence, or to make an oath 
to the Bishop of Rome. Will any one venture to question the-- 
wisclom of this enactment? 

a Strype's " Eccles. Mem.," vol. i, part ii, p. 158, fol. edit, 

b 23 Henry VIII., c. xxi. 



75 

But it must be most particularly noted that this Act specially 
provides that "no article of the established religion of the Catholic 
faith of Christendom " was to be, in consequence, altered. This is 
important to be remembered ; for Mr. Cobbett's accusation is, that 
Henry changed the religion of the country ; whereas the very con- 
trary is the fact, and any such alleged change was most expressly 
guarded against. 

The clergy now spoke out without reserve. On the 31st March, 
1534, the Convocation of Canterbury, and on the 5th May the 
Convocation of York, declared " that the Pope of Eome hath no 
greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in Holy Scripture, 
in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign Bishop." a 

Then followed, in 1534, the famous Act b declaring — what the 
preamble of the Act stated had been already recognized by the clergy 
of the realm in their convocations — that the King was, and his heirs 
and successors should be, the head of the Church of England. 
The laity, in Parliament, ratified the decision of the clergy. 
The Church of England had been, as I have shown, from the 
commencement, from the planting of the Gospel in this country by 
the Apostles, or their immediate successors, and for many centuries, 
independent of the See of Borne. A submission was first exacted 
by Pope Gregory I., which was resisted ; but this refusal was 
closely followed, as predicted by the Pope's emissary, by a ruthless 
massacre of our bishops at Bangor. The independence of England 
of the ecclesiastical control of Rome was asserted by William the 
Conqueror, William II., Edward III., Bichard II., and Henry IV. 
" The King," said the learned Bracton, Lord Chief Justice in the 
reign of Henry III., " is the vicar and minister of God in the 
land : every one is certainly under him, and he himself is under 
none, save only under the Lord." This independence was lost or 
impaired by the weak and vacillating conduct of some of the inter- 
vening kings, and Henry VIII. now only revived a right of inde- 
pendence of himself and of the Church of England. This was in 
1534. In the following year Pope Paul III. fulminated his impo- 
tent Bull of Deposition against Henry VIII., as a retaliation for 

a Wilkins' " Concilia," torn, iii, p. 767. 
b 26 Henry VIII., c. i. (1534.) 

c "De Legibus et Consult. Anglige," lib. ii, c. viii, sect, v, fol. 5. London,. 
1569. 



76 

his rejection of the Pontifical authority. This bull was, however, 
suspended and not put in force until 1538. The Pope, having 
failed to induce Henry to revoke all his acts of social and political 
reform, eventually excommunicated and deposed Henry, placed 
the nation under an interdict, and absolved his subjects from 
their oath of allegiance. He transferred the kingdom to any 
successful invader, and prohibited all communication with the 
English monarch. He deprived the King of Christian burial ; and 
consigned the sovereign and his friends, accomplices, and adherents 
to anathemas, maledictions, and everlasting destruction; and ex- 
communicated, anathematized, cursed, and condemned Henry to 
eternal damnation. He stigmatized his posterity with illegitimacy 
and incapacity of succession to the Crown, while he delivered his 
partisans to slavery. The English clergy he commanded to leave 
the kingdom, and admonished the nobility to arm in rebellion 
against the King. He annulled every treaty between Henry and 
other princes. He enjoined the clergy to publish the excommuni- 
cation by bell, book, and candle ; and all who opposed his infalli- 
bility incurred the indignation of Almighty God and the blessed 
Apostles Peter and Paul. Henry at once passed an Act, as he had a 
right to do, declaring all Papal Bulls published in this country void. 
Even after this vain ebullition of the Pope, Bishops Tunstal, 
Gardiner, and Bonner, in 1536, boldly asserted the King's right to 
take the position he had done. Bishop Tunstal, in reply to Car- 
dinal Pole, said, " It is true the King had rescued the English 
Church from the encroachments of the Court of Rome, and if this 
be a singularity he deserves praise. For the King has only 
reduced matters to their original state, and helped the Church 
of England to her ancient freedom." Bishop Gardiner said that, by 
the resumption of the royal supremacy, the King acted with the 
consent of the "most excellent and learned Bishops, and of the 
nobles and whole people of England." He states "that no new 
thing was introduced when the King was declared to be supreme 
head ; only the bishops, nobles, and clergy of England determined 
that a power, which of divine right belonged to their Prince, 
should be more clearly asserted by adopting a more significant 
expression." a These were all undoubted members of the Roman 

* Step. Gard., " De Vera Obediential' Fasc. App. 108, quoted by Dr. 
Hook, " Lives of the Archbishops," vol. vi, p. 55. London, 1868. 



77 

Church ; but these were the u hypocrites" who " pretended that 
the Pope, a foreigner exercising spiritual power in England, was 
a degradation to the King and country." a Mr. Cobbett shows 
himself to be a greater Papist than the Bishops of the Roman 
Church in England were in those days. Gardiner was subse- 
quently one of the chief advisers of Mary in all her persecutions 
of Protestants. 

To sum up in a few words the benefits Henry conferred on 
this country : He did away with pluralities of livings and foreign 
licences permitting a non-resident clergy ; he prohibited appeals 
to Rome in matters temporal and spiritual ; he abrogated all 
fees paid to Rome on ecclesiastical appointments and suits ; he 
cut off the supplies abstracted on the most frivolous pretexts ; 
and, lastly, he re-asserted the dignity and authority of the King 
of England as supreme head of the Church in his own dominions. 
In fact, because he had the courage to brave the thunders of the 
Vatican, and to place himself above the prejudices and superstitions 
of his day, and sense enough to withdraw himself from Papal 
jurisdiction (being many years in advance of his age), therefore he 
was to be excommunicated and damned to all eternity. Henry's 
Parliament had done no more than what every Roman Catholic 
country has since accomplished. Henry was the pioneer, simply 
because England was a more suffering victim to Papal tyranny and 
Papal rapacity than any other country of Europe. Whatever 
may have been the motive which put in action these important 
social and political reforms, England has reason to be thankful 
that a Henry VIII. arose who had the will and determination 
to uphold the dignity of his rank as King of England and the 
independence of his throne ; and the courage to sweep from the 
face of the land the accumulated abuses which were eating its 
vitals ; and to free England from a servile, galling, oppressive, and 
degrading clerical despotism. In a bold and flippant style, Mr. 
Cobbett passes over the whole period between Austin's visit to the 
time of Henry VIII., by telling us that the Papal Supremacy was 
"firmly fixed" in this country for 900 years, until removed by 
Henry, without a single intimation that any opposition or dis- 
affection had in the interval been even whispered 1 

» 89. 



78 

The suspended Bull of Excommunication of 1535 had been, as 
I said, published and put in force ; for what it was worth, in 1538. 
In 1539 an Act a was passed for the dissolution of monasteries, 
nunneries, and abbeys, those strongholds of the Papacy, and, with 
few exceptions, sinks of iniquity. It has been urged that the con- 
sequences of this Act deprived the poor of their best friends and 
supporters ; but, when rightly considered, the concentration of such 
enormous wealth in the clergy created the poverty. Out of the 
spoils, Henry established several new bishoprics ; retained a j^ortion 
for the Crown, which he applied to meet public expenses, funds 
being urgently required to put the country in a state of defence ; and 
divided the rest, as is alleged, among his courtiers. This was the 
last and great crowning act of reform of King Henry, which freed the 
country from a pesthouse of drones and useless members of society. 

I have now passed in view the history of the Papal usurpation in 
this country, from the first beginning to its final overthrow by 
Henry VIII. It will be seen that a reformation in religion was no 
part of these, otherwise important, proceedings ; for Henry not only 
declared that no change in this respect should take place, but he 
enacted a severe law, called the Six Articles Act, against those 
who denied the truth of certain leading Popish doctrines. 5 For 
instance, by this Act, all those who denied the Eomish doctrine 
of transubstantiation were condemned to be burnt ; those who denied 
communion in one kind, the perpetual obligation of the vows of 
chastity, private masses, the celibacy of the clergy, and auricular 
confession, were to be accounted felons, and on conviction, to be put 
to death and their goods forfeited. In fact, Henry lived and died 
a thorough Romanist in all doctrines except the supremacy of 
the Pope. 

Mr. Cobbett affects to lament the degradation of England con- 
sequent on the great political and social change which took place 
by virtue of Henry's enactments. He extols the abundance and ease 
enjoyed by our forefathers, and declares those to be hypocrites who 
pretend that it was a degradation to the King and country that the 
Pope, a foreigner, should have exercised spiritual rule in England. 
Such is Mr. Cobbett's patriotism ! But, inasmuch as the change 
was brought about exclusively by Romanists, and to effect -which 

a 31 Henry VIII., c. xiii. 
b 31 Henry VIII., c. xiv. 



79 

not one Protestant element was agitated, Mr. Cobbett's wrath and 
abuse should be turned on Romanists, and not on Protestants. 
The changes enumerated originated from the Priests themselves : 
they surely were the best judges of the position of affairs and the 
intolerable burdens which had been laid on them. The true 
Reformation — the reformation of religion — had not yet commenced. 
The Reformation under the reign of Henry VIII. was purely 
political and social, but scarcely less important on these accounts. 

But Mr. Cobbett raises a strange issue on the result of the 
expulsion of the Papal power from these dominions. He says : 
"As to the Pope's interference with the authority of the King or 
state, the sham plea set up was, and is, that he divided the govern- 
ment with the King, to whom belonged the sole supremacy with 
regard to everything within this realm." Now mark Mr. Cobbett's 
declaration on this : " This doctrine, pushed home, would shut out 
Jesus Christ himself, and make the King an object of adoration." a 
Mr. Cobbett professed to be an Englishman, and a member of the 
Church of England, as such he was bound to hold with her that — 
" The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction 
in this realm of england." 
We cannot use stronger words than these to "push home" the 
" doctrine." Do we, in "shutting out" the Pope of Rome, there- 
fore shut out Jesus Christ also ? If Mr. Cobbett really believed 
so, it was a Christian duty on his part to declare himself Romanist 
at once. Can even any Romanist believe in his sincerity ? Dr. Hook 
has truly said, that the infidel and Romanist make common cause to 
pull down our Church; and the course Mr. Cobbett has adopted 
leaves us but one alternative, namely, to declare that, if he was not 
a Romanist, he was an infidel. He venerated the bones of Tom 
Paine, and borrowed the substance of his book from the Jesuits ! 

History gives the same account of Popery in all ages, viz., that 
it is aggressive, cruel, and tyrannical. It has ever been so, and will 
be so as long as it has any existence. 

Burnet, in the conclusion to " The History of his own Times " 
(1643 to 1715), b as the result of his experience, said: — " Learn to 
view Popery in a true light, as a conspiracy to exalt the power of 
the clergy, even by subjecting the most sacred truths of religion to 
contrivances for raising their authority; and by offering to the 
a 88. b Vol. iv, p. 400. Edit. 1815. 



80 

world another method of being saved, besides that presented by 
the Gospel. Popery is a mass of impostures, supported by men 
who manage them with great advantage, and impose them with 
inexpressible severities on those who dare call anything in question 
that they dictate to them." 

The history of the Papacy in England, which I have attempted 
in this chapter and in the sequel to sketch, amply justifies this 
statement. Mr. Cobbett himself once thought so too, and so he 
expressed himself ; and I cannot more appropriately conclude this 
chapter than by quoting the following passage from his own 
" Political Register" :~ a 

'? In whatever way you may contemplate — in whatever light the 
people of this country may be disposed to consider the strenuous 
efforts now making by the Church of Rome to obtain a pre- 
ponderating influence in Europe, I confess the very idea of there 
being merely a chance of her succeeding fills my mind with the 
most gloomy apprehensions." 

* Yol. xxvi, p. 311. London, 1814. 



CHAPTER III. 

HENRY VIII. a 

It is a favourite device with those who desire to vilify the Reform- 
ation and the Church of England, and, indeed, Protestantism in 
general, to attack the character of Henry VIII., and question the 
motives which led him to throw off the Papal supremacy, and 
assume the office of supreme ruler of the Church in England. 
They first misstate history, then denounce Henry VIII. to be the 
most bloody and licentious monarch who ever ruled a country, and 
then further that he changed the faith, founded the Church of 
England, declared himself its head, and thus gave birth to the 
Reformation. They echo Cobbett's declaration that the Reform- 
ation "was engendered in beastly lust, brought forth in hypocrisy 
and perfidy, and cherished and fed by plunder, devastation, and 
rivers of innocent blood." b I reply, that, in the various complications 
of this reign, the credit of the religious Reformation was in no way 
implicated. Though the whole of Mr. Cobbett's case rests on the 
affirmative of this proposition, there is nothing in the religion of 
Protestants which sanctions the vices of which Henry is accused ; 
while, on the other hand, if we establish the vices and irreligion of 
the Popes and priesthood of Rome, we cut at the very foundation of 
their religion, because the Popes presume to be Vicars of Christ and 
successors of the Apostles, and should act as such. But, exagge- 
rate as much as they will the vices of Henry, the Protestant or 
Reformed Religion remains untouched and unaffected. The Church 
of England, when Henry came to the throne, during his reign, and 
when he died, held every single doctrine that was then professed 
by the Roman Church. The Pope's supremacy was not a doctrine 
of the Roman Church. By fraud and violence the Pope obtained a 
temporary supremacy ; but, for the reasons and by the means stated 
in my last chapter, his power and usurped supremacy over the 
King's subjects were so far abrogated, that the King was declared 

* I have in this chapter largely availed myself of my own book, " Henry 
VIII. : an Historical Sketch of the Eeformation." 
b 192. 

a 



82 

to be the sole fountain of all honors, civil and ecclesiastical, and head 
of the Church in his own dominions. Every individual who took a 
part in the events of this reign was a member of the Eoman 
Church, and Henry himself professed the Roman religion to the 
day of his death. His religion and morality, such as they were, he 
received from the Church of Rome. It is wholly untrue, as stated 
by Mr. Cobbett, that he " laboured hard at making a new religion 
and new articles of faith." a Whatever crimes may be laid at 
his door, whatever motives may be attributed to him, the Reformers 
or the Reformed Church of England can be in no way responsible 
for them. The more wicked Henry is made to appear, the more 
disgrace attaches to the religion he professed — Popery. Henry 
himself may be charged with schism, not with heresy. 5 But is this 
charge (rightly or wrongly brought) peculiar to Henry ? Were 
there no other schisms in the Roman Church ? In a.d. 251 to 253 
the Novatian schism was created. In 367 to 385 was the second 
Anti-Pope, Ursicinus. In 418 to 423 there was another schism, 
and also in 498 to 514. Again, from 530 to 532, when Dioscorus 
placed himself in opposition to Boniface II. From 688 to 701 
there were two schisms in the Papacy; and again in 757 to 768 ; 
and an Anti-Pope reigned between Stephen III. and Adrian I. 
There was another schism in a.d. 824, occasioned by Zinzinus ; 
and again in 844. Romanus, in 897, intruded himself by force, 
and was recognised by many. Leo VIII. , 963, was made Pope by 
force. Boniface VII., John XVL, Silvester III., John XX., 
Benedict X., and Clement III. were all usurpers. From 1073 to 
1181 there were twelve Anti- Popes, more or less recognised as lawful 
Popes. From 1378 to 1439 we have had Clement VII., Bene- 
dict XIII., Clement VIII., and Felix V., all claiming the chair in 
opposition to other claimants. All these were greater schisms 
than that created by Henry VIII. 

As to the moral character of Henry, paint him as black as Mr. 
Cobbett will, and let him collect all the evil deeds attributed to him, 
they fall far, very far, short of the iniquities of the Popes, even 
of those who were Henry's contemporaries. Indeed, Mr. Cobbett 

a 71. 

b Mageoghegan, the Romish historian, said that Henry VIII. was not 
guilty of heresy, but of schism. Mag, ii, p. 310, Histoire. Paris, 1758. 
And as Du Pin said, " Nihil quidem in fide niutans." Histoire, 568. 



83 

Trimself has given us a chapter on the subject in his weekly 
" Political Eegister." a While Henry was contented with the claim 
of head of the Roman Church in England, according to ancient 
custom, these iniquitous Popes respectively claimed to be head of the 
Universal Church of Christ, as his Vicar on earth ! The chair was 
not unfrequently obtained by simony and murder. Yet they assert 
such to be Christ's Vicars on earth ! The standard, therefore, of 
the man, so much dwelt upon by Romanists in general, and by 
Mr. Cobbett in particular, as an objection to a system of which he 
is alleged to be a representative leader — as head — cannot be con- 
sistently advanced as a valid objection to Henry as the alleged 
founder of the Reformed Church. But, as I said, the question 
does not touch the religious Reformation, or the Reformed Church 
in England. 

But, again, however black Henry's character may have been, or 
however guilty he may have been of excesses, these cannot possibly 
be advanced as reasons for distorting history. One would suppose 
that the accusations having been made against Henry and the 
Reformers, as a plea condemnatory of the Reformation, more than 
extra caution would be bestowed in accurately stating the facts on 
which these accusations are supposed to be based. 

If Mr. Cobbett had established by proofs all that he alleges 
against Henry VIII., still I maintain that his case is not advanced 
one iota. Henry's character does not affect the question of the 
desirability of a Reformation in the Church, either in her doctrine 
or in her practice. But the accusations, being for the mcst part 
popular fallacies, are greedily recorded by Mr. Cobbett ; and the 
benefit to be derived from their exposure will be to show that 
Mr. Cobbett is a worthless and untrustworthy authority in matters 
of history, and wholly unworthy of credence. 

Mr. Cobbett writes as follows [the italics are his own] : — 

" We must first take a view of the motives which led the tyrant 
Henry VIII. to set their [the Reformers'] devastating and plunder- 
ing faculties in motion. 

" The King succeeded his father, Henry VII., in the year 1509. 

He succeeded to a great and prosperous kingdom, a full treasury, 

and a happy and contented people, who expected in him the wisdom 

of his father without his avarice, which seems to have been that 

a See ante, p. 15. 

g 2 



84 

father's only fault. Henry VIII. was eighteen years old when his- 
father died. He had had an elder brother, named Arthur, -who, at 
the early age of twelve years, had been betrothed to Catherine, 
fourth daughter of Ferdinand, King of Castile and Arragon. 
When Arthur was fourteen years old, the Princess came to Eng- 
land, and the marriage ceremony was performed ; but Arthur, who 
was a weak and sickly boy, died before the year was out, and the 
marriage never was consummated; and, indeed, who will believe 
that it could be ? Henry wished to marry Catherine, and the 
marriage was agreed to by tlie parents on both sides ; but it did not 
take place until after the death of Henry VII. The moment the 
young King came to the throne he took measures for his marriage, 
Catherine being, though only nominally the widow of his deceased 
brother, it was necessary to haTe from the Pope, as supreme head 
of the Church, a dispensation, in order to render the marriage law- 
ful in the eye of the canon law. The dispensation, to which there 
could be no valid objection, was obtained, and the marriage was, 
amidst the rejoicings of the whole nation, celebrated in June, 1509, 
in less than two months after the King's accession. 

" "With this lady, who was beautiful in her youth, and whose 
virtues of all sorts seem scarcely ever to have been exceeded, he 
lived in the married state seventeen years, before the end of which 
he had had three sons and two daughters by her, one of whom only, 
a daughter, was still alive, who afterwards was Mary Queen of 
England. But now, at the end of seventeen years, he being 
thirty-five years of age, and eight years younger than the Queen, 
and having cast his eyes on a young lady, an attendant on the 
Queen, named Anne Boleyn, he, all of a sudden, affected to believe 
that he was living in sin, because^, he was married to the widow of 
his brother, though, as we have seen, the marriage between Cathe- 
rine and the brother had never been consummated, and though the 
parents of both the parties, together with his own Council, unani- 
mously and unhesitatingly approved of his marriage, which had, 
moreover, been sanctioned by the Pope, the head of the Church, 
of the faith and observances of which Henry himself had, as 
we shall hereafter see, been, long since his marriage, a zealous 
defender I 

" But the tyrant's passions were now in motion, and he resolved 
to gratify his beastly lust, cost what it might in reputation, in trea- 



8-5 

*sure, and dn blood. He first applied to the Pope io divorce him 
from his Queen. He was a great favourite of the Pope, he was very 
powerful, there were many strong motives for. yielding to his re • 
quest ; but that request was so full of injustice, it would have been 
so cruel towards the virtuous Queen to accede to it, that the Pope 
could not, and did not grant it. He, however, -in hopes that time 
might induce the tyrant to relent, ordered a court to be held by his 
Legate and Wolsey in England, to hear and determine the case. 
Before this court the Queen disdained to plead,. and the Legate, 
■ dissolving the court, referred the matter back to the Pope, who still 
refused to take any step towards the granting of the divorce. The 
tyrant now became furious, .resolved upon overthrowing the power 
of the Pope in England, upon making himself the head of the 
Church in this country, and . up on doing whatever else might be 
necessary to insure the gratification of his beastly desires, and the 
glutting of his vengeance. 

" By making himself the supreme head of the Church, he made 
himself, he having the sword and the gibbet at his ; command, 
master of all the property of that Church, including that of the 
monasteries ! His counsellors and courtiers knew this ; and as 
it was soon discovered that a sweeping confiscation would :take place, 
the Parliament was by no means backward in. aiding his designs, 
every one hoping to share in -the plunder. -The first step was 
to pass Acts taking from the Pope all authority and power over 
the Church in England, and giving to the King .all authority 
whatever as to ecclesiastical matters. His chief adviser and abettor 
was Thomas Cranmer, .a name which deserves -to be held in ever- 
lasting execration ; a name which we could not pronounce without 
almost doubting of the justice of God, were it not for our know- 
ledge of the fact, that the cold-blooded, most perfidious, most 
impious, most blasphemous caitiff expired, at last, amidst those 
flames which he himself had been the chief cause of kindling. 3 

" The tyrant being now both 'Pope and 'King, made Cranmer Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, a dignity just then become vacant. * * * 

" The King had had Anne about three years ' under l Iiis pro- 
tection,' when she became, for the first time, with child. There 
was now, therefore, no time to be lost in order to ' make an honest 
■woman of her.' A private marriage took place in January 1533. 

*61-G4. 



86. 

As Anne's pregnancy could not be long disguised, it became 
necessary to avow her marriage ; and therefore it was also 
necessary to press onward the trial for the divorce ; for it might 
have seemed rather awkward, even amongst ' reformation ' people, 
for the King to hare two ivives at a time ! Now, then, the famous 
ecclesiastical judge Cranmer had to play his part ; and, if his 
hypocrisy did not make the devil blush, he could have no blushing 
faculties in him. Cranmer, in April, 1533, wrote a letter to the 
King, begging him, for the good of the nation, and for the safety 
of his own soul, to grant his permission to try the question ot 
the divorce, and beseeching him no longer to lire in the peril 
attending an ' incestuous intercourse ! ' Matchless, astonishing- 
hypocrite ! He knew, and the King knew that he knew, and 
he knew that the King knew that he knew it r that the King had 
been actually married to Anne three months before, she being with 
child at the time when he married her ! " a 

Supposing all this to be correctly stated as historical facts, surely 
it is monstrously absurd and unjust to impute all these transactions 
to the account of the Reformation in religion ! That Reformation 
had not even begun. It was a Popish business from first to last,, 
and all parties implicated were thorough Romanists. As to the 
first statement,, that Henry VIII. succeeded to a great and pros- 
perous kingdom, a full treasury, and a happy and contented people,, 
this is an assertion which the facts related in my last chapter belie. 
By an Act passed in the third year of the reign of Henry VIII. 
it is attested,, that the prisoners in the kingdom for debt and crimes 
were above GO, 000 persons. 

Camden r an historian of the reign of Elizabeth, thus mentions 
the result of the Reformation, then completed : — 

" England, as politicians have observed, became, of all the king- 
doms of Christendom, the most free, the sceptre being, as it were, 
delivered from the forraine servitude of the Bishop of Rome, and 
more wealthy than in former ages, an infinite mass of money being 
stayed at homej which was wont to be exported daily to Rome,, 
being incredibly exhausted from the commonwealth for first-fruits, 
pardons,, appeals, dispensations, bulls, and other such like." b 

a 65-68. 

b Camden's " Elizabeth," book v p. 20. London, 183S. 



87 

To pass on to historical facts : — 

Mr. Cobbett asserts, as a fact, that the marriage between Prince 
Arthur and Catherine was not consummated; that Henry wished 
to marry Catherine, she being only nominally Arthur's widow, and 
that there was no valid objection to the Pope's dispensation for 
Henry's marriage with Catherine. 

If there had been no valid objection, then the Pope's disjDensation 
was not needed. If the first marriage had been consummated 
then there was a valid objection. Now the Pope's bull " dispensed 
with the impediment of their affinity [i. e. between Henry and 
Catherine], notwithstanding any apostolic constitution to the 
contrary." The Pope, in giving this dispensation, was not influ- 
enced by the fact, whether the previous marriage had been con- 
summated or not, for this same bull granting the licence actually 
refers to the fact as probable. a 

And Collier, in his " Ecclesiastical History," says : — 

" In these instructions the impediments of affinity, the objections 
of Catherine's cohabitation with Arthur, the supposition of her being 
already married to Prince Henry, are all overruled and dispensed 
with. For, though there was no matter of fact to rest the 
last case upon, yet the court of Rome was resolved to make 
all sure." b 

And, further, the marriage contract, executed in 150D, which has 
lately come to light, and has been published in the Kimbolton 
collection, places the matter beyond doubt : — 

" Ferdinand and Isabel, as well as Henry [VII.], promise to 
employ all their influence with the court of Rome, in order to 
obtain the dispensation of the Pope, necessary for the marriage of 
the Princess Catherine with Henry Prince of "Wales, The Papal 
dispensation is required because the said Princess Catherine had, 
on a former occasion, contracted a marriage with the late Prince 
Arthur, brother of the present Prince of Wales, whereby she 
became related to Henry, Prince of Wales, in the first degree of 
affinity ; and because her marriage with Prince Arthur was solem- 

a " Carnali copula for s an consummavisseiis, Dominus Arthurus prole 

ex hujusmodi matrimonio non suscepta, decessit." — Cott. Lib., Vitel., b. xii, 
cited by Burnet, ' ; Hist, of Keformation," Records, bk. ii, vol. iv, p. 5. 
Hares' edit., London, 1830. 

b Collier's " Eecl. Hist.," vol. ii, pt. ii, bk. i. London, 1714. 



88 

nized according to the rites of the Catholic Church, and afterwards 
consummated.'' 1 a 

The marriage with a brother's widow was contrary to the law of 
the Church of Rome. It was forbidden by the Emperor Const an- 
tine ; and the children of such a marriage were declared illegitimate.' 5 
A Council held at Rome, a.d. 743, under Pope Zachary, anathe- 
matized those who should contract such marriages, founding the 
prohibition on the law of Moses, which the Council declared to be 
binding on all Christians ; and the clergy were forbidden to admi- 
nister to such the sacraments of the Church, unless they consented 
to break the tie, and do public penance. And the same prohibition 
was confirmed by the Popes Eugenius II., a.d. 824, and Leo IV., 
a.d. 847. d The texts relied on were Leviticus xyiii. 16 and xx. 21. 

Thus, then, such a union was contrary to the law of the Church 
of Rome, and accounted equally contrary to the law of God. But 
the Bishop of Rome, in the plenitude of his assumed apostolic 
power, set aside both, for the interests, as he then supposed, of the 
Church, which were paramount. The result proved a just retribution 
on the Pope. This illegal marriage, and the subsequent divorce, 
were the original causes of the complications which ultimately led 
to a separation of the Church in England from the dominion of 
Rome, and with it the suppression of the Pope's spiritual inter- 
ference in this country. Mr. Cobbett is, therefore, not accurate in 
his statement when he says, that there was no ^alid objection to 
the marriage between Henry and Catherine. 

Mr. Cobbett says Henry " wished to marry Catherine." The 
marriage contract was signed in a.d. 1503, when Henry was not 
twelve years old ! But Mr. Cobbett omits to state that in 
January, 1505, at the instigation of Wareham, then Archbishop 
of Canterbury, on the plea that the marriage was contrary to the 
law of God, and that the issue of such a marriage could not 
succeed to the Crown, and by his father's command, Henry de- 
clared before a public notary "that, whereas, being under age, he 

* ' : Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne." Edited from the Papers 
at Kimbolton. London, 1864, p. 62 ; and see p. 60. 

b See Codex. Theod., lib. iii. Tit. xii, De Incest. Nup. Leg. 2. 

c Labb. et Coss. Concil. Con. Rom. I. Congreg. a Zacharia Papa, ann. 743, 
can. vi, torn, vi, col. 1546. Paris, 1671. 

d See the reference in the margin at the col. last quoted. 



89 

was married to the Princess Catherine ; now, on coming of age, he 
protested against the marriage as illegal, and annulled it." a Anne 
Boleyn was not born until a.d. 1511 ! After the death of Henry 
VII., viz., in June, 1509, the Council of Henry VIII., for reasons 
of state, and to retain a large dowry in this country, induced 
him to renew the marriage, which he did six weeks after his 
accession to the throne. Thus, the reasons for the first separation 
were based on the very same grounds as the second and final 
separation. 

The next charge is, that Henry, having cast his eyes on a young- 
lady, attendant on the Queen, Anne Boleyn, he all of a sudden 
affected to believe that he was living in sin, because he was married 
to the widow of his brother. 

This is a gross misrepresentation ; the existence of Anne Boleyn 
had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The first difficulty, 
after the separation above-mentioned, occurred in April, 1527. A 
treaty of marriage had been drawn up in December, 1526, between 
Mary, the daughter of Henry, and the Duke of Orleans, son of the 
King of France. The Bishop of Tarbes, the French King's 
ambassador in England, represented to his master that, as the 
marriage itself was illegal, Mary was illegitimate, and could never 
succeed to the throne. This put an end to the contract ; and thus 
the question was brought to a practical issue, and, acting under 
the advice of Cardinal Wolsey and Longland, his confessor, who 
both declared the union sinful, Henry was induced to examine 
again into the question of the legality of his marriage. There is 
not the slightest evidence that Anne Boleyn had at this time in 
any way occupied the King's affections. b 

Henry entrusted to Wareham and Longland the duty of ascer- 
taining the opinions of the Bishops of England on the subject. 
These opinions were obtained in writing. All the Bishops, except 
one — Fisher, Bishop of Eochester — all Eoman Catholics, con- 
curred in declaring, under their hands and seals, in the most solemn 

a This document is in the Cotton Library, ViteL, b. xii, and is cited in 
full by Burnet, in his " History of the Reformation," Records, b. ii, vol. iv, 
p. 5, Nares' edit., 1830. 

b There is strong evidence that the King had abstained for three years 
before from all intercourse with the Queen. See the letter to Bucer, referred 
to by Burnet in his " History of the Reformation," pt. i, b. ii, p. 60, vol. i. 
Edit. 1830. 



DO 

manner, tliat the marriage with Catherine was illegal. This 
opinion was endorsed by every lawyer in the land except Sir 
Thomas More. These two — Fisher and More — would Lave readily 
acquiesced but for the Bull of Dispensation permitting the first 
marriage. They were both Papists in the strictest sense of the 
word. The Pope was their sole spiritual ruler. This, with them, 
was a matter of conscience. 

The next misrepresentation is that Henry, driven on by "beastly 
lust, cost what it might in reputation, in treasure, and in blood," 
first appealed to the Pope for a divorce ; but that request was so 
full of injustice that the Pope could not and did not gnmt it. 

Cardinal Wolsey, differing in opinion from More and Fisher. 
undertook to apply personally to the Pope for a dispensation for 
the proposed divorce. AVolsey found the Pope at Orvieto. a 
prisoner of the Emperor, Charles V., Catherine's nephew, and 
obtained from him a written sanction for a divorce. Not being a free 
agent at Rome, the Pope could not grant a bull in proper form. The 
following is the account given of this transaction, which took place 
in December, 1527, by Dr. Lingard, the Roman Catholic his- 
torian : — " The Envoys presented him [the Pope] for signature 
two instruments which had been drawn up in England, by the first 
of which he empowered Wolsey to hear and decido the cause of the 
divorce. By the second he granted to Henry a dispensation to marry, 
in the place of Catherine, any other woman whomsoever, even if she 
were already promised to another, or related to him in the first degree 
of affinity" a The latter instrument he signed without any 
alteration. 

According to the same authority (Dr. Lingard), the Pope 
further expressed his opinion in the latter case, in these unmis- 
takable terms : — 

"The King appears to me to have chosen a most circuitous 
course. If he be convinced in his conscience, as he affirms, that 
his present marriage is null, let him marry again. This will enable 
me or the Legate to decide the question at once. Otherwise, I 
foresee that by appeals, exceptions, and adjournments, the cause 
must be protracted for many years." 

So that Mr. Cobbett is wholly mistaken when he says, that the 

a Dr. Lingard gives the date of Dec. 16. 1527. " History of England," 
vol. vi, pp. 172-3, cap. iii. Edit. London, 1823. 



91 

Pope neitlier would nor could give his sanction. There is no doubt 
but that the Pope would haye issued his formal bull confirming 
the divorce had he been then a free agent, and not under terror of 
the Emperor. In fact the Pope actually recommended, through 
Gregory Cassalis, the King's ambassador at Rome, that the King 
should marry another person without consulting him, for otherwise 
his Queen, he said, would, complicate matters by entering a protest, 
and an inhibition must follow ; but if the King had once married 
another wife, the matter would only require confirming. 3 The 
Pope even suggested that constraint might bo put upon him by 
the advance of a French army on his territories, so that the 
granting of the bull might appear a compulsion on him. Thus 
delays and complications did take place. In May, 1528, Pope 
Clement VII. sent his Legate Campeggio to investigate the case ; 
in fact, only to delay the matter, as he was being threatened on the 
other side by the Emperor, if he issued the bull sanctioning the 
divorce. He was, as he himself expressed it, u like a red hot 
piece of iron between the hammer and the anvil;" and, as Strype 
has it, " the Pope said and unsaid, sighed, sobbed, beat his breast r 
shuffled, implored, threatened." b It is true that the Pope 
" refused to take any steps for granting the bull of divorce," but 
not from the motive attributed to him by Mr. Cobbett ; for it is a 
fact that the Pope communicated to the Bishop of Tarbes, then still 
in England, that he would be happy to hear that the King had got 
married without consulting him — in fact, on his own responsibility 
— so that he (the Pope) was not committed to it. c 

As to the motives which Mr. Cobbett and other assailants of the 
Church of England and of the Reformation desire to attach to 
Henry in prosecuting his suit, this question seems to be entirely set 
at rest by the admissions of the Pope's own Legates, in their com- 
munications to their master : — 

a See Cotton, lib. Vitel., b. x, quoted in full by Burnet, Records vi, b. ii, 
vol. iv. Hares' edit., 1830. 

b Strype's " Memorials," appendix iv, No. 61, p. 100, folio edition. 

c "A ce qu'il nven a declare des fois plus de trois en secret il seroit 
content que le dit mariage fust ja faict en par dispense du Legat 
d'Angleterre ou autrement ; mais que ce ne fust par son autorite, ni aussi 
diminuant sa puissance, quant aux dispenses et limitation de droit divin." 
" DechirT rcmcnt de Lettres de M. de Tarbes." Legrand, vol. iii, p. 400 ; 
quoted by Froude, (i History of England." vol. i, p. 211. London, 1350. 



92 

" It was mere madness," they wrote, " to suppose that the King 
would act as he was doing, merely out of dislike to the Queen, or 
out of inclination for another person. He was not a man whom 
harsh manners and an unpleasant disposition could so far provoke ; 
nor can any sane man believe him to be so infirm of character that 
sensual allurements would have led him to dissolve a connexion in 
which he has passed the flower of youth without stain or blemish, 
and in which he has borne himself, in his present trial, so reve- 
rently and honourably." a 

Mr. Froude, after giving this part of the subject the most patient 
consideration, comes to the following conclusion : — 

" They [the King's scruples] were not originally occasioned, I 
am persuaded, by any latent inclination on the part of the King 
for another woman ; they had arisen to their worst dimensions 
before he had ever seen Anne Boleyn, and were produced by causes 
of a wholly independent kind." b 

The document from which I have quoted thus proceeds : — 

They told the Pope " it pitied them to see the rack of torments 
■of conscience under which the King had smarted for so many years ; 
-and that the disputes of divines and the decrees of fathers had so 
disquieted him that, for clearing a matter thus perplexed, there was 
not only need of learning, but of a more singular piety and illu- 
mination. To this were to be added the desire of issue, the settle- 
ment of the kingdom, with many other pressing reasons ; that, as 
the matter did admit of no delay, so there was not anything in the 
opposite scale to balance these considerations." The Legates added 
these important reflections as evidence, delivered at the time, of 
"the opinion entertained by the Pope's own representatives : — 
'" There were false suggestions surmised abroad, as if the hatred of 
the Queen, or the desire of another wife, were the true causes of 
the suit. But though the Queen [Catherine] was of a rough 
temper and an unpleasant conversation, and was passed all hopes 
of children, yet who could imagine that the King, who had spent 
his most youthful days with her so kindly, would now, in the 
decline of his age, be at all this trouble to be rid of her, if he had 

a See Burnet's "Eecords," vol. i, b. ii, n. xxiv, p. 110, and vol. iv., no. xx., 
Nares' edit., 1830. Quoted by Froude in his "History of England," vol. i, 
p. 106. London, 1856. 

b Ibid. Idem. 



93 

no other motives ? But they, by searching his sore, found there 
was rooted in his heart both an awe of God and a respect to law 
and order, so that, though all his people pressed him to drive the 
"matter to an issue, yet he would still wait for the decision of the 
Apostolic See." They, however, urged on the Pope to give a 
speedy decision, " considering this a fit case to relax the rigour of 
the law ; " and they significantly added, that, if the dispensation 
were not granted,*" other remedies would be found out, to the vast 
prejudice of the ecclesiastical authority, to which many about the 
King advised him ; there was reason to fear that they should not 
only lose a kingof England, but a defender of the faith." 

This was written in May, 1529. 

The court held in England, referred to by Mr. Cobbett, met in 
June, 1529, when the Pope's Legate Cardinal Campeggio de- 
clared, in his official capacity, that the King and Queen were living 
in adultery, or rather incest. It was at this court (18th June) that 
the King declared: — "./That in the treaty for the marriage of his 
daughter with the Duke of Orleans it was excepted that she was 
illegitimate; on this he was resolved to try the lawfulness of his 
marriage, as well to quiet his own conscience, and for clearing the 
succession to the throne. If the marriage were found lawful, he 
would be well satisfied to live with the Queen. He was first 
advised in the -matter by the Bishop of Lincoln, and at his 
desire the Archbishop of Canterbury had obtained the opinions of 
all the Bishops." The Queen appealed to the court of Eome ; it 
was not the Legate " who dissolved the court, and referred the 
matter back to Rome." Every step Mr. Cobbett takes in this 
case is based on a misrepresentation of historical facts. Such a 
divorce as was sought was perfectly consistent with the genius and 
character of the Romish religion. 

It must be borne in mind that the second marriage took place 
in January, 1533. Mr. Cobbett^pretends that Henry's scruples 
were feigned, in order to find an excuse to marry Anne, with whom, 
he alleged, the King had cohabited for three years. Dates refute 
this supposition. It was in April, 1527, six years previous, as j 
have shown, that Henry was thoroughly awakened to his false 
position. It was not until October, 1528, that Henry gave any 
evidence whatever of his affection for Anne. It cannot be traced 
to an earlier date, as she had been previously in France. The 



94 

Romanist, Dr. Lingard, of this transaction says, " When Henry, 
however, ventured to disclose to her [Anne] his real object, she 
indignantly replied, that though she might be happy to be his 
wife, she would never condescend to become his mistress." a 

The slander refutes itself, for it will be difficult to account 
for the fact that Elizabeth, the first and only child of Anne 
Boleyn, was not born before September, 1533, the marriage having 
publicly taken place early in January of the same year. It has 
been stated that they were privately married in the December pre- 
vious. Mr. Cobbett, however, says, that the marriage of January 
was a private one. b 

Mr. Cobbett now represents Henry as being furious in conse- 
quence of the Pope's refusal to sanction the divorce, resolving 
to overthrow the Pope's power in England by making himself 
supreme head of the Church, and by sword and gibbet make him- 
self master of all Church property and that of the monasteries ; 
that he, thereupon, took from the Pope all authority and power 
over the Church whatsoever in ecclesiastical matters, his chief 
adviser and abettor being Thomas Cranmer. Being now Pope 
and King he made Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Now, mark what Mr. Cobbett says as having taken place before 
January, 1533. w It was now four or five years since the King 
and Cranmer had begun to hatch the project of divorce, but in the 
meanwhile the King had had Anne Boleyn three years under his 
protection." c 

What are the facts of the case? It was in September, 1529, that 
Dr. Cranmer, then a tutor at Cambridge, accidentally was thrown 
into company with the King's Secretary, at a house of a mutual 
friend at Waltham Cross, when he freely expressed his opinion on 
the law of the case, namely, that the first marriage was void, and 
recommended that the opinions of the Universities of Europe 
should be taken on the subject. This advice was communicated 
to the King, and Dr. Cranmer was directed to collect the opinions, 
which he proceeded to do in 1530. The judgment of all the 
English Bishops, except Fisher, had been obtained (April, 1530), 
under hand and seal, declaring the nullity of the King's marriage 
with Catherine. This decision was approved of, ratified, and con- 

a "History of England," vol. ii, c. iii, p. 155. London, 1823. 
b 68. c 67, 



95 

firmed by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Uni- 
versity of Orleans, the Faculty of the Civil and Canon Law at 
Angers, the Faculty of Canon Law at Paris, the Faculty of 
Divines at Bruges, the Divines of Bologna, the University of 
Padua, the celebrated Faculty of Sorbonne at Paris, the Divines 
of Ferrara, the University of Thoulouse, by the most famous 
Jewish Rabbins, and by a large number of Canonists in Venice, in 
Rome itself, and many other places. 

It has been said that all these votes were purchased ! If so, it 
still further proves the depravity of the whole of the Prc-Reforma- 
tion Church. 

It is important to note, to the credit of the Protestants, that the 
Lutherans, Melancthon and others, gave their opinion that the 
marriage was void ; but they maintained that the King should not 
marry again during Catherine's lifetime.* 1 

The case was then referred to the House of Commons and Con- 
vocation, both of which bodies decided the marriage to be illegal. 

In the face of this universally expressed opinion of a Catholic" 
Christendom — all Romanists, Mr. Cobbett has the hardihood to 
assert, that the matter of the divorce was pressed on " by the Refor- 
mation gentry," u to whom it might seem awkward for the King to 
have two wives at a time." As to the matter of having two wives, 
this did not appear a difficulty in the way of the Pope. Gregory 
Cassalis was then (1530) the King's ambassador at Rome. Lord 
Herbert of Cherbury, in his history of " The Life and Reign 
of Henry VIII.," gives the text of a letter, under date 17th 
September, 1530, written to Henry by Gregory Cassalis, the 
original of which he declares to have himself examined. In this 
letter Cassalis informs the King, that the Pope Clement VII., 
admitting the importance of the matter, had proposed to concede 
to his Majesty the permission even of having two wives, b under the 
supposition, perhaps, of being unable to revoke the act of his 
predecessor Julius II., by granting a divorce from a marriage 
sanctioned by Papal bull, but might exercise his assumed pre- 

a ; ' Colloquia Mensalia." Bell's 2nd. edit., London, 1791, pp. 398-9. 

h " Superioribus diebus, Pontifex secreto, veluti rem quam magni fcccrit, 
mini proposuit conditionem hujusmodi, concedi posse vestige majestati nt 
diias uxores habeas." — Herbert's " Life and Reign of Henry VIIL," p. 130. 
London, 1683. 



96 

rogatives by granting additional privileges without running counter 
to existing impediments. 

Mr. Cobbett was probably not aware of the fact that the Pope 
had thus actually granted Henry a license to have two wives, 
otherwise he might have written (for the honour of those whose 
cause he was the hired advocate) with more caution, when he 
brought it as an accusation against Luther and seven other Re- 
formers, of permitting bigamy. " If Luther," he says, "had begun 
twelve years later the King would have been a Protestant at 
once, especially after seeing that this new religion allowed Luther 
and seven other of his brother leaders in the Reformation to grant, 
under their hands, a licence to the Landgrave of Hesse to have 
two wives at the same time ! So complaisant a religion would 
have been, and doubtless was, at the time of the divorce, precisely 
to the King's taste." a It was not necessary to call, in aid, either 
Protestants or the " Reformation Religion " to enable a Popish 
King to indulge in connubial extravagances. 

And this was Clement VII., the bastard son of Julien of 
Medicis, who came to the Papal throne by simony, by promising 
Cardinal Colonne wealth and honours if he obtained the Popedom, 
assisted as he was by the Cardinal's vote and patronage. 

On the 14th July, 1531, the King formally separated from 
Catherine. It was in February, 1532, that the Cardinals in Rome 
publicly sided with Henry. One of these was Cardinal Monte, 
afterwards Julius III. Wareham was at this time Archbishop of 
Canterbury. He died 22nd August, 1532. The King married 
Anne in January 1533. The Act prohibiting appeals to Rome 
was passed 14th February, 1533. On the 21st February, 1533, 
the Pope of Rome himself signed the bull of Crammer's consecration 
as Archbishop of Canterbury (having previously promoted him to 
a place of honour and trust) ; the bull was sent on the 2nd March, 
and Cranmer was consecrated on the 30th of that month. 

Cranmer refused to accept the Pope's bull for his consecration, 
but delivered it over to the King, as he did not consider this form 
necessary to the validity of his appointment ; and on taking the 
oath of fidelity to the Pope before his consecration, which was the 
custom of the day, he accompanied it with a public protest "that 
he did not admit the Pope's authority any further than it agreed 

» 101. 



97 

with the express word of God ; and that it might be lawful for 
him at all times to speak against him, and to impugn his errors 
when there should be occasion." This he thrice repeated in the 
presence of official witnesses. 

In April, 1533, the Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation 
declared the nullity of the first marriage ; and it was on the 10th 
May, 1533, that all the Bishops and Archbishops held a Consistory, 
oyer which Cranmer, in his official capacity, presided. " Though 
he pronounced sentence, he was but the mouthpiece of the rest, and 
they were all as deep as he." a And on the 23rd, they came to a 
unanimous decision, declaring that the first marriage was void de 
facto et de jure. 

It is this solemn decision of the united bench of Archbishops 
and Bishops in council which has been erroneously set down as 
" Cranmer's sentence," and for which he has been so unjustly con- 
demned by a certain class of thinkers and writers. It was the 
sentence of the entire court, confirming the previous decision of 
universal Christendom. Cranmer did nothing more than 'proclaim 
or record the decision of the court, over which he presided by 
virtue of his office as Archbishop of Canterbury. Cranmer's 
detractors seem to forget this, as also that the judgment was 
according to the rule then, as well as now, almost unanimously 
received and acknowledged; namely, that the marriage with a 
brother's widow was accounted incestuous, and forbidden as well 
by the law of God as by the law of nature; a moral precept 
insisted on more particularly by that class who are most vehement 
against Cranmer — members of the Roman communion at the 
present day. It is, therefore, an act of injustice to fix on this 
Council, or on Cranmer personally, who only indorsed the opinion 
of the divines and learned men of Europe, other than an honest 
conviction in the truth of their decision. I ask, where is Mr. 
Cobbett's justification for the invectives heaped on the head of 
Cranmer ? He forgets that if Cranmer aided and abetted Henry 
VIII. in an unholy cause, and that Henry only pursued his course 
without any just ground, and only to gratify an inordinate passion, 
the whole of the bishops, cardinals, divines, universities, canonists, 
and even the Pope himself, were guilty as his accomplices ! ! All 
were members, most of them priests, of the Roman Church ; the 

* Strype's " Life of Cranmer," b. i, c. iv, p. 21, folio edition. 

H 



98 

Reformation, in this country, did not actually commence until the 
succeeding reign. Cranmer's detractors would hare been silent 
had the Pope's permission for the divorce been formally confirmed 
by the issue of a bull — a senseless lump of impressed wax attached 
to a piece of parchment, on which the decision already given would 
be formally recorded. They would consent to submit to the 
dictation of a miserable mortal, who wickedly assumes the power 
of dispensing at will the law of God and nature (for so was it 
universally believed, and is still believed, by this very class of 
detractors), and would recognise a decision which the Pope had no 
more right or power to deliver then than he has now. In fact, 
an act unlawful and immoral in itself, they readily recognise as 
moral and lawful because it was sanctioned by a decree of a Pope 
through a fallible man — Pope Julius II., " sitting in the place of 
God; showing himself as if he were a God." 

After such a unanimous and solemn decision of universal Christen- 
dom, what virtue could there be in a Bull of Confirmation by a 
Pope, — in a bull already promised but withheld only from fear and 
from worldly motives ? a 

In the month following (viz. June, 1533,) Anne was crowned 
Queen. The ceremony was attended by bishops, monks, and abbots, 
at which the Bishop of Bayonne took a conspicuous part. They 
joined in the procession; and the Bishops of London and "Win- 
chester bore the lappets of her robe ; thus giving this marriage 
their moral support. 

On the 12th May, 1533, the Pope cited Henry to appear at 
Rome, the Emperor urging him on to proceed to excommunication ; 
but the Pope hesitated, and waited the result of his proposed inter- 
view with Francis I. on the subject, which it was hoped would bring 
about a reconciliation. On the 29th June, the King appealed from 
the Pope to a General Council. The news of the King's marriage 
arriving at Rome so exasperated the Pope that, in a fit of passion, 
he threatened to boil Bonner, the King's messenger, in molten lead, 
or burn him alive. But he considered it more prudent to reserve 
his wrath, and he postponed his judgment on the case to the 12th 
July, when he issued a brief reversing the sentence of Convocation, 

* The several documents proving all the above facts are recorded in 
Burnet's "History of the Keformation." Nares' edition, 1830, vol. i, 
pp. 51—223. 



99 

and commanded Henry to cancel the process ; and if he failed to 
obey, he was to be declared excommunicate ; but he still suspended 
"his censures. a But Henry refused to retract. 

7th September, 1533, Elizabeth (afterwards Queen) was born. 
It was on this very day that the Pope, on the interference of 
Francis I., King of France, promised to give his sanction in favour 
of the divorce, pro v ided the King submitted to his (the Pope's) juris- 
diction. Francis urged upon the Pope the necessity of complying 
with Henry's demand. The Pope, on this occasion, said to Francis 
— and which the King of France communicated to Henry by letter, b 
that he (the Pope) was satisfied that the King of England axis right, 
that his cause was good, and that he had only to acknowledge the 
Papal jurisdiction by some formal act, to find sentence immediately 
given in his favour : a single act of acknowledgment was all the 
Pope required. The French monarch was commissioned to offer a 
league, offensive and defensive, between England, France, and the 
Papacy. This was to be the price of the proposed concession. A 
holy compact indeed ! Henry VIII., however, replied with a calm 
dignity befitting the high position he held in Europe, and as King 
of England. He rejected the proposal with temperate forbearance, 
and sent for a reply, " that all his acts, from the commencement of 
his reign, proved that he was well disposed to the Pope ; but, as 
matters stood, he would make no conditions. It would redound 
much to the Pope's dishonour if he should seem to pact and cove- 
nant for the administration of that thing which, in his conscience, 
he had adjudged to be rightful. It was not to be doubted that, if 
he had determined to give sentence for the nullity of the first 
marriage, he had established in his own conscience a firm persuasion 
that he ought to do so ; and, therefore, he ought to do his duty 
simjiliciter et gratis, without worldly respect, or for the preservation 

of his pretended power or authority." " To see him," continued 

Henry, " to have this opinion, and yet refuse to give judgment in 
our behalf, unless we shall be content, for his benefit and pleasure, 
cedcre juri suo y and to do something prejudicial to our subjects 
and contrary to our honour, it is easy to be foreseen what the 
world and posterity shall judge of so base a prostitution of 

a State Papers, vol. viii, p. 481. 

h See Fronde's " History of England," vol. ii, p. 151. London, 1858 ; and 
State Papers, yol. i, p. 421. 

H 2 



100 

justice." Thank God! it was a Henry VIII., and not a King 
John, with whom the Pope had to deal ! And when history is 
correctly represented, and not distorted by interested parties (by 
the very parties whose leader on this occasion acted such a renal 
and dishonest part), posterity will judge rightly, as well of the 
Pope's attempt to prostitute justice, as of Henry's magnanimity, 
boldness, and consistency of purpose and character. 

That the Pope of Eome was not actuated by any principle of 
religion or morality in refusing to confirm the original consent 
given for the divorce, becomes more apparent when we find that 
Pope Pius V. — the same Pope who afterwards excommunicated 
Elizabeth — so late even as the year 1566, thirty-three years after 
the birth of Elizabeth, offered to remove the impediment of her 
supposed illegitimacy, and " reverse the sentence of his prede- 
cessor;" yes, " and that he was extremely anxious to do so," on 
condition, of course, that Elizabeth should "submit to his rule." 
The Spanish ambassador, De Silva, assured Queen Elizabeth- that 
" she had only to express a desire to that effect, and the Pope 
would immediately remove the difficulty." a 

There was no passion or unbecoming haste displayed by Henry 
or his Parliament. Henry's answer to the proposition of Francis 
I. was returned in November, 1533, and it was not until the 20th 
March, 1534, after the Pope had refused Henry's appeal to refer 
his case to a General Council, and that the Pope's sentence against 
the divorce had come into force, that the English Parliament 
passed the Act abolishing the Pope's power in England, and swept 
away the accumulation of abuses and Papal exactions before 
referred to. Parliament, however, declared that a separation from 
the Pope was not a separation from the unity of the Faith. b 

The Pope, having nothing better to fall back upon, on the 23rd 
March, 1534, confirmed the sentence against the divorce ; not in 
consequence, however, of this Act — they came almost together — 
but, probably, in consequence of Henry's letter, backed by the 
promise of support by Charles V. 

a See De Silva's letter to Philip II., dated December, 1566, quoted by 
Mr. Fronde in extenso, " History of England ; the Keign of Elizabeth," 
yob viii, pp. 329-30. London, 1863. 

b 25 Henry VIII., c. xxi. 



101 

In 1535, Paul III. — the very same Paul III. who, when a 
Cardinal, in all the debates at the Court of Rome had unswervingly- 
advocated Henry's suit for a divorce, and maintained the justice 
of his demands ; and who, even after the sentence against Henry 
at Rome was pronounced, urged the reconsideration of the fatal 
step a — this same Paul III. issued his Bull of Deposition of Henry 
VIII. (which he suspended until 1538), cursing and anathema- 
tizing him and his posterity, absolving all his subjects from their 
allegiance ; b a document which the King of France declared to be 
a most impudent production; and that the Pope's "impotent 
threats could not only do no good, but would make him the 
laughing-stock of the world." c So little was the Pope's u impotent 
threat " estimated by the English ecclesiastics, that the whole of 
the Bishops then in England (nineteen in number), and twenty- 
five Doctors of Divinity and Law, signed a declaration against the 
Pope's pretensions and his assumed ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which 
concluded with the following remarkable words :— 

" The people ought to be instructed that Christ did expressly 
forbid his Apostles, or their successors, to take to themselves the 
power of the sword or the authority of kings : and that, if the 
Bishop of Rome or any other bishop assumed any such power, he 
was a tyrant and usurper of other men's rights, and a subverter of 
the Kingdom of Christ." d 

Bishop Gardiner — the furious Romanist Gardiner — himself wrote 
a violent treatise against the supremacy of the Pope ! The title 
of " supreme head of the Church of England," he asserted, " is 
granted to the King by free consent, in the open court of Par- 
liament, wherein there is no newly invented matter wrought ; only 
their will was, to have the power pertaining to a prince of God's 
law to be the more clearly expressed, with a fit term to express it 
by, namely, for this purpose, to withdraw that vain opinion out of 
the common people's heads, which the false pretended power of the 

a Fronde's " History of England," vol. ii, p. 332. London, 1858. 
b I have given the original text and a translation of this bull in my 
Henry VIII. Appendix. Partridge and Co., Paternoster row. (Price Is.) 
c State Papers, vol. viii, p. 628, quoted by Froude. 

d Quoted by Burnet, " History of the Reformation," pt. i, b. iii, voh i, 
p. 399. Nares' edition, 1830. 



102 

Bishop of Rome had, for the space of certain years, blinded them 
withal, to the great impeachment of the King's authority." a 

Even after these events, Paul III. renewed his negotiations 
through Gregory Cassalis, and offered to concede all Henry could 
desire, but he wanted only some trifling intimation of recognition 
on the King's part of his authority, actually admitting at the 
same time that the Bull of Excommunication had been extorted 
from him by the undue influence of the Emperor Charles, 
Catherine's nephew. b 

I have been more minute in the examination of these accusations 
against Henry, for not only Mr. Cobbett, but all enemies of the 
Reformation dwell on this part of our history as the origin of the 
Church of England and of the Reformation which followed, and of 
which they speak in the most contemptuous manner. 

Henry's Reformation was political and social ; but it cannot be 
denied that Henry was a pioneer of the reformation in religion 
which followed. God has selected His own instruments to carry out 
His own objects, but, as I said before, whatever Henry's motives 
or his moral character may have been, such questions have no 
weight in the consideration of the fact, whether England was 
justified in reforming the religion of the country by purifying it 
from the delusions and superstitions which the craft of a corrupt 
priesthood had engrafted on the system of Christianity. Is there 
anything in the reformed religion which sanctioned the alleged 
vices of Henry ? He opposed the supremacy of the Pope purely 
on political and social, and not religious, grounds, and, as I before 
remarked, the " supremacy of the Pope " formed no article of faith 
of any Christian Church. 

Henry's unfortunate matrimonial alliances have been a fruitful 
theme of invective against this monarch, but although all these 
events took place after the Pope's supremacy in this country had 
been abrogated, and the King himself declaring that no article of 
faith in the religion of the country should be thereby changed, the 
subject has no bearing whatever on the question of the Reformation, 
nor are the Reformers chargeable for his acts. I have elsewhere 

a Quoted by Todd, in his Vindication of Cranmer, pp. 60-66, London,. 
1826 ; with the reference to the original documents. 

b See Letter of Sir Gregory Cassalis to Henry VIII. Cotton MS. Vitellius,. 
b. xiv, fol. 215, quoted by Fronde. 



103 

treated fully on this subject, and endeavoured to dispel some 
popular fallacies attending those events, which, after the death 
of Jane Seymour, were purely based on political grounds. The 
first marriage was invalid, both by the civil law and by a law 
of the Church; the separation was by consent of the Pope and 
the sanction of every court and ecclesiastical authority and univer- 
sity throughout Europe. Anne Boleyn was convicted of high 
treason by two juries, one consisting of peers, on which two of her 
own relations sat and concurred in the verdict. Jane Seymour 
died after childbirth. Henry was separated from Anne of Cleves, 
they not having cohabited. Catherine Howard was beheaded on 
the clearest evidence of adultery, and Catherine Parr outlived 
Henry, and every marriage after the death of Jane Seymour was 
thrust on Henry by the nation, purely on political grounds, namely, 
to secure an heir to the throne, it being believed that Edward 
would not survive. I am dealing with facts, which, viewed at this 
distance of time, appear contrary to nature and morality, but 
affected the mind of the nation, indeed of Europe, then, in a very 
different manner. 3 

Having now disposed of, I trust satisfactorily, the main accusa- 
tions against Henry, I may be spared following Mr. Cobbett 
through his various vituperative accusations, particularly as none 
of them are advanced on any better authority than those I have 
already passed in review. But, it will be observed, in Mr. 
Cobbett's estimation of Henry's character, cruelty, next to lust, 
is made his predominant vice. He takes the cases of Bishop 
Fisher and Chancellor More, as two salient examples to sustain 
his charge. Indeed, none other is advanced. I will take these 
two cases and examine them. 

Mr. Cobbett's statement is as follows :— 

" To abjure this supremacy was an act of apostacy, and also 
an act of base abandonment of the rights of the people. To 
require it of any man was to violate Magna Charta and all the laws 
of the land ; and to put men to death for refusing to comply with 
the request was to commit unqualified murder. Yet, without such 
murder, without shedding innocent blood, it was impossible to 

a See Henry VIII., an Historical Sketch as affecting the Eeformation. 
1st edition, W. H. Allen & Co., London, 1864 : 2nd edition, price Is. S. "\V. 
Partridge & Co., 1868. 



104 

effect the object. Blood must flow. Amongst the victims to this 
act of outrageous tyranny were Sir Thomas More and Bishop 
Fisher. The former had been the Lord High Chancellor for 
many years. The character given of him by his contemporaries, 
and by every one to the present day, is that of as great perfection 
for learning, integrity, and piety, as it is possible for a human 
being to possess. He was the greatest lawyer of his age, a long- 
tried and most faithful servant of the King and his father, and 
was, besides, so highly distinguished beyond men in general for his 
gentleness and humility of manners, as well as for his talents and 
abilities, that his murder gave a shock to all Europe. Fisher was 
equally eminent in point of learning, piety, and integrity. He was 
the only surviving privy councillor of the late King, whose mother 
(the grandmother of Henry VIII.), having outlived her son and 
daughter, besought, with her dying breath, the young King to 
listen particularly to the advice of this learned, pious, and venerable 
Prelate ; and, until that advice thwarted his brutal passions, he was 
in the habit of saying, that no other prince could boast of a subject 
to be compared with Fisher. He used, at the council board, to 
take him by the hand and call him his father ; marks of favour 
and affection which the Bishop repaid by zeal and devotion which 
know no bounds other than those prescribed by his duty to God, 
his king, and his country. But that sacred duty bade him object 
to the divorce and to the King's supremacy ; and then the tyrant, 
forgetting, at once, all his services, all his devotion, all his un- 
paralleled attachment, sent him to the block, after fifteen months 
of imprisonment, during which he lay, worse than a common felon, 
buried in filth and almost destitute of food ; sent him who had 
been his boast, and whom he had called his father, to perish under 
the axe ; dragged him forth, with limbs tottering under him, his 
venerable face and hoary locks begrimed, and his nakedness 
scarcely covered with the rags left on his body — dragged him thus 
forth to the scaffold, and, even when the life was gone, left him to 
lie on that scaffold like a dead dog ! Savage monster ! Rage 
stems the torrent of our tears, hurries us back to the horrid scene, 
and bids us look about us for a dagger to plunge into the heart of 
the tyrant." a 

» 95. 



105 

Let it be granted in the outset that the murders were atrocious. 
They were wholly consistent with the persecuting spirit of the 
times. The actors were all Eomanists. One set attempting to 
ride over the other. A house divided against itself, with which 
Keformation principles had nothing whatever to do. 

But taking the case as one consistent with the spirit of the age, 
a great deal can be said in extenuation of Henry. 

In my reply to Mr. Cobbett's version, I will here repeat what I 
have so recently said on the subject in my work last above quoted. 
I am willing to take these two cases, and to examine the cir- 
cumstances connected with their tragic character, and then let 
Henry be judged accordingly. Fisher and More both were con- 
sistent, uncompromising adherents of the Papacy. Fisher, until 
his later days, with constancy persevered in persecuting others ; 
but Sir Thomas More, when in power, enforced his own opinions 
on matters of religion on others without even a shadow of mercy. 
He was a relentless persecutor and a bigoted Papist ; he enforced 
and even strained the law, by every means, fair or foul, to impose 
what he called orthodoxy on the people, and in his capacity of 
Chancellor exercised his powers beyond their due limits. These 
acts of cruelty, though perpetrated during Henry's reign, cannot 
with justice be laid to his door, though they are unfairly ascribed 
to him. More, on his own authority, committed Phillips to the 
Tower unconvicted, where he languished for three years, on the 
unproved charge of his having used alleged unorthodox expressions 
on Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Pilgrimages, and Confession. 
Phillips at length appealed to the King, as supreme head of the 
Church, through the Commons, and obtained his liberty. 

Again, More most illegally and unwarrantably committed the 
"poor bedeman" John Field to the Fleet for two years, on a 
private examination by himself of the accused, in violation of the 
laws of the land, and shamefully ill-treated him; and, on his 
obtaining his liberty, he was again imprisoned by More without 
trial. With More, heresy (so called) was a crime deserving of 
death ; and when the seals were intrusted to his hands, Smithfield 
fires recommenced, the offences being either a denial of Transub- 
stantiation, of the Pope's supremacy, or an accusation of the 
lewdness of priests. Abjuration or death was More's remedy for 
heresy. Poor James Bainham, after suffering the " black-hole " 



106 

of the Bishop of London, was carried to the private house of Sir 
Thomas More, where for two nights he was chained to a post and 
whipped, and he was again subsequently imprisoned and tortured, 
More himself superintending the application of the rack. Bainham 
was ultimately burnt as a relapsed heretic by order of More. At 
the stake he solemnly laid his death expressly to Sir Thomas More>. 
whom he called his accuser and judge. The accusation against him; 
was, " that he had said Thomas a Becket was a murderer, — that 
he [Bainham] had spoken contemptuously of praying to saints, 
and saying that the sacrament of the altar was only Christ's 
mystical body, and that his body was not chewed with the teeth, 
but received in faith." And these persecutions are unjustly laid to 
the charge of Henry personally ! 

But why dwell on such scenes ! Bainham's was a sample of many 
similar cases. More was pitiless in condemning what he considered 
a crime. What reason had he to exclaim against similar acts of 
others, when, with equal sincerity, they were exercised on himself? 
Political necessity and national safety dictated the latter course, 
but mere religious bigotry and intolerance the former. Voltaire 
describes More as a superstitious and barbarous persecutor, and 
that it was for such cruelties he deserved to be put to death, and 
not for having denied Henry's supremacy. 51 

Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher countenanced and en- 
couraged the mad impostor " the Nun of Kent," who inflamed 
men's minds with her prophecies against the King, and who, but 
for a strong arm, would have raised a rebellion in the land in 
favour of the Pope. She gave colour to her supposed divine 
mission by forged miracles, to which she subsequently pleaded 
guilty. In the bill of attainder against the Nun of Kent and her 
accomplices, More and Fisher were declared guilty of " misprision 
of treason." They denied the King's supremacy, and otherwise 
impeached his title. This was for a warning only, and the King's, 
minister, Cromwell, intimated that the King would accept their 
apologies. More was pardoned on an evasive explanation, which 
was accepted ; but Fisher was obstinate, and even undertook to. 
justify himself. He still countenanced the conspiracy against the 
King. He was again urged to apologise, but he again refused, 

a Essay on the Spirit of Nations, cap. cxxxv, vol. iii, p. 205 ; see vol. xviL 
Works, Paris, 1785. 



107 

and there was nothing left but to pass the bill for his attainder (6th 
March, 1534). The Nun was executed for treason, but Fisher, in 
spite of himself, was left unpunished. In March, 1534, the bill 
was passed declaring the marriage with Catherine invalid, and the 
marriage with Anne was confirmed. It was declared that whosoever 
impugned by word or deed the legitimacy of the issue of that mar- 
riage would be guilty of treason, and a Commission was appointed 
to take the examination of persons who were suspected, or would 
not submit to the Act. This course became necessary, for it was 
at this time that news of the Pope's decision against the marriage 
arrived in England, and the Convocation had declared the Pope's 
authority abolished; and the Bull of Excommunication against 
Henry which followed, absolving all his subjects from their oath 
of allegiance to the King, and inviting them to rebel against him, 
was threatened. A Commission sat to receive the oaths of allegiance 
of all classes holding offices, ecclesiastical and lay, with others holding 
appointments under the Crown. Fisher and More were required to 
conform to the law ; the oath was read to them, a and they refused to 

a As Mr. Cobbett stakes all on the issue of taking this oath, as the " test 
of true religious and civil liberty " [84], I set out the oath that was offered 
to "be administered to More and Fisher : — " Ye shall swear to bear faith, 
truth, and obedience alonely to the King's Majesty, and to his heirs of his 
body of his most dear and entirely beloved lawful wife Queen Anne begotten, 
and to be begotten. And further to the heirs of our Sovereign Lord, accord- 
ing to the limitation in the statute made for surety of his succession in the 
crown of this realm mentioned and contained, and not to any other within 
this realm, nor foreign authority or potentate. And in case any oath be 
made, or hath been made, by you to any person or persons, that then ye do 
repute the same as vain and annihilate. And that to your cunning, wit, 
and uttermost of your power, without guile, fraud, or other undue means, 
ye shall observe, keep, maintain, and defend the said act of succession, and 
all the whole effects and contents thereof ; and all other acts and statutes 
made in confirmation or for execution of the same, or of anything therein 
contained. And this ye shall do against all manner of persons, of what 
estate, dignity, degree, or condition soever they be ; and in no wise to do or 
attempt, nor to your power suffer to be done or attempted, directly or in- 
directly, any thing or things, privily or appartly, to the let, hindrance, 
damage, or derogation thereof, or of any part of the same, by any manner 
of means, or for any manner of pretence. So help you God, and all saints, 
and the holy evangelists." 

The oath tendered to ecclesiastical bodies seems to have been a little 
different. There is still existing the oath taken by the priors of the 



108 

take it. There was nothing in the declaration required which 
could possibly affect the most tender conscience. They were 
thereupon told, as was the fact, that they were the first to refuse it. 
They were allowed time for reflection, but they still refused. 
Cranmer, then Archbishop, and Cromwell, the King's Minister, 
made every endeavour to save them. They were both deeply 
affected in their interviews with them; but Mr. Cobbett, with 
characteristic effrontery, declares that " these horrid butcheries 
were perpetrated under the primacy of Foxe's great Martyr, 
Cranmer, and with the active agency of another ruffian, Thomas 
Cromwell !" a 

Cranmer, in fact, as appears from a letter to Cromwell, advised 
that More and Fisher should be allowed to swear in their own 
terms, which was to acknowledge the succession appointed by the 
King, though they refused to bow to his supremacy ; while of 
Cranmer, More himself wrote, that he tenderly favoured him. b 
Mr. Cobbett, as has been well remarked, writes like one who had 
destroyed every record but his own, and who supposes that by 

Dominican convents of Langley Regis, of Dunstable, of the Franciscan 
convents of Ailesbury and De-Mare, the Carmelites of Hecking, of the 
prioress of the Dominican nuns of Deptford, in the name of themselves and 
of all the brethren, and made under the respective seals of their convents. 
After renewing their allegiance to the King, and swearing to the lawfulness 
of the marriage of Queen Anne, and to be true to the issue thereof, and 
that they should always acknowledge the King as head of the Church of 
England, and that the Bishop of Home had no more power than any other 
bishop had in his own diocese, and that they should submit to all the King's 
laws notwithstanding the Pope's censure to the contrary, they further 
declare that in their sermons they should not pervert the Scriptures, but 
preach Christ and His gospel sincerely, according to the Scriptures and the 
traditions of orthodox and Catholic doctors ; and in their prayers, that they 
should pray first for the King, as supreme head of the Church of England, 
then for the Queen and her issue, then for the Archbishop of Canterbury 
and the other ranks of the clergy. Under the signatures is added a declara- 
tion that the oath is taken freely and without compulsion. This document 
bears date the 4th May, 1534. — (See Burnet's " History of the Reformation," 
vol. iv. Records, b. ii, pt. ii, No. 50.) 

It is evident that the great bulk of the ecclesiastical orders were at this 
time quite glad to free themselves of Papal rule and Papal exactions. It 
was not until the dissolution of the monasteries was being carried out that 
an opposition was got up by the ejected monks, &c, to this oath, 
a 98. b Collier's " Eccl. Hist.," p. ii, b. ii, fol. edit. 



109 

some magic influence he can blind the minds of his readers, and 
permit them to see, and that without the power of comparison, 
nothing but the propositions he chooses to advance. 

More and Fisher were then committed to the keeping of the 
Abbot of "Westminster. They were again examined, and, per- 
sisting in their refusal, they were sent to the Tower. Fisher and 
More refused to do what the bishops and clergy throughout the 
realm readily consented to do, and who did not, thereby, consider 
that they were acting against their conscience. The whole country 
gladly submitted to the new dispensation, and were happy in their 
release from Papal tyranny and Papal rule, the clergy being 
released from onerous pecuniary exactions, the laity from intolerant 
priestly despotism. Some few desperate Papists, who openly and 
deliberately persisted in their disloyalty and treason, were executed. 
To release such noted men as Fisher and More, would have been 
an injustice to those who suffered. It became absolutely necessary 
to enforce the Act of Submission ; any hesitation on the part of the 
Parliament would have lost the advantage gained by the people, 
and have thrown them back under the power of the Pope. It was 
now a question who was to rule in England — the King or the 
Pope. There was, nevertheless, every desire to spare Fisher and 
More. Fisher, in June, 1535, actually wrote a letter to the King, 
questioning his supremacy. Even this, the King offered to over- 
look if he did not publish it ; but Fisher persisted in promulgating 
his views. 

It must be noted that the two illustrious prisoners were not 
treated as criminals ; they were allowed their own attendants, and 
to correspond with, and see, their friends ; yet even here, they did 
not desist in defaming and slandering the King. They were even 
engaged, while in confinement, in schemes of rebellion, 3 and, con- 
sequently, in May, 1535, they were again called upon for their 
submission to the King. A deputation from the Council waited 
upon them, but they still refused to take the oath. Their trial 
was delayed to give them a further chance of escape, but the Pope 
(Paul III.) at this very time, most injudiciously, perhaps on 
purpose to insult Henry, conferred on Fisher the foreign title of 
Cardinal, which contravened the law of the land, and encroached 
on the King's just prerogative. This hastened the action of the 
a State Papers, vol. vii, p. G35. 



110 

Council. Being once again, in vain, called upon to submit, Fisher 
was, on the 17th June, tried and found guilty of treason, and 
condemned accordingly ; and, on the 22nd June, was beheaded as 
a traitor on Tower Hill. 

How different are the real facts of the case from the statements 
given by Mr. Cobbett. He hides from view the conduct of the 
sufferer, and the real causes which led to his execution. But it must 
be admitted that it was a sad spectacle indeed, and one which almost 
makes us shed bitter tears, to see an old man, already on the verge 
of death, tottering to the scaffold to lay his head on the block, 
renouncing the few years — perhaps days — left to him, for a 
u principle," the admission or rejection of which could neither 
affect his own eternal salvation, or the good of him for whom he 
sacrificed himself. The only consolation we have — if it be a 
consolation at all — is that he died an easy and no ignominious 
death. He carries with him the synrpathies of all. But why is 
not the same sympathy extended to Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, 
and the noble host of Protestant martyrs? They died a cruel 
death. They, too, were sacrificed — not for a "principle," but — 
for rejecting a comparatively modern theological speculation, the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation, imposed by the Roman Church for 
belief as an article of faith, on pain of death, but the rejection of 
which was a case of conscience, and could affect only the 
individual ! 

More's fate soon followed. On the 7th May he was examined. 
On the 26th June a true bill was found against him. On the 1st 
July he was brought to the bar. His treason was established ; in 
vain he was again urged to submit ; and thereupon the jury found 
a verdict of guilty, and he was beheaded as a traitor. He was 
judged by his equals. It is a monstrous act of injustice to fix any 
responsibility of these acts on the Reformers, or as affecting the 
Reformation. All the parties connected with or affected by them 
were Roman Catholics, the religion of the country was Roman 
Catholic, and Romanists alone are responsible or accountable for 
them. 

We cannot, in the present state of society, measure the justice 
or injustice of an Act of Parliament which brought these eminent 
personages to the block. We now hang in cases of murder : this 
in a future generation may be deemed barbarous. Only a few 



Ill 

years ago we hanged for comparatively most trivial offences. 
Queen Mary, of unhappy memory, seconded, perhaps instigated, 
-by her ecclesiastical advisers, for they in fact ruled, brought to the 
stake and burnt alive many hundreds for refusing to admit an 
arbitrary theological proposition. They reserved the same punish- 
ment for those who denied that the Pope ought to have supreme 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this country, while in the previous reign 
of Henry the fate of decapitation (a more merciful sentence at all 
events) awaited those who asserted that the Pope had, or ought to 
have, any such ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction in this 
country over the King. Hundreds suffered under Mary's laws ; 
Fisher and More, and a comparatively few others, under Henry's 
laws. 

A martyr to any cause excites our sympathy and commisera- 
tion ; and to sacrifice life to maintain a principle, however erroneous 
we may think it, is an act of heroism which, with many, covers the 
guilt which provokes the blow. In Fisher we find the martyr 
sacrificing himself to maintain a principle. He considered himself 
bound by his ecclesiastical vows, and was firm and consistent to the 
end. He was comparatively harmless, except in maintaining and 
spreading those opinions, which he in his conscience was bound to 
do ; but this, and his refusal to submit himself to the laws of his 
country, amounted to treason. He knew the fate that awaited him, 
and the penalty he had to pay. But as to More, we are constrained 
to view his punishment in another light. While in power he put 
in action with relentless fury the laws which enabled him to torture 
and burn those who did not believe an abstract doctrine as a point of 
faith, and those who denied the authority of a foreign prince, which 
was called " heresy." The day of retribution came round, when he 
forfeited his own life for maintaining that same authority, which 
was declared to be " high treason." More may be accounted a 
martyr by some ; but with him the honour was certainly shared by 
his opponents and victims. He was himself a victim of retributive 
justice, and Henry can scarcely be made responsible for the result. 
More's case is the more conspicuous from his high position and 
brilliant accomplishments. But it must be remembered that these 
very qualities, his very position, would have rendered an evasion of 
the law in his favour more dangerous to the State. We lament 
the necessity which gave occasion for such violent measures, but the 



112 

blame should primarily rest on him who sought to maintain a 
usurped power in this country, which was so grossly abused. The 
religious reformation which followed had no part or responsibility 
in the transaction. 

But "the sacred duty of an historian," exclaims Mr. Cobbett! — 
the idea of a Cobbett appealing to the sacred duty of an historian ! — 
compels him to notice the " heroic conduct of the two friars Peyto 
and Elstow." " Ten thousand victories by land and sea would not 
bespeak so much heroism in the winners of these victories as was 
shewn by these friars ; a before their conduct how the heroism of 
the Hampdens and the Eussells sinks from our sight," 5 the one 
"preaching before the King just previous to his marriage with 
Anne," openly rebuked the King. But Mr. Cobbett adds, " the King 
took this reproof in silence ; " c Peyto, following in the same vein, 
" the two friars were brought before the King's Council, who re- 
buked them, and told them that they deserved to be put into a 
sack and thrown into the Thames." They were, however, 
dismissed as two cracked-brained enthusiasts. The Council 
did not gratify their ambition of being made martyrs. And this 
was the blood-thirsty tyrant who attained his supremacy through 
rivers of blood ! I do not attempt to deny or palliate Henry's 
persecutions, but whatever the cases of More and Fisher may 
prove, the selection of these cases and that of the two heroic friars, 
as illustrative of Henry's relentless cruelty and brutality, is some- 
what unfortunate, but then the " sacred duty as an historian, calls him 
to make mention of these two friars, &c," as notable examples ; 
and, as he mentions no other cases, we must presume the worst has 
been said of Henry on the score of "savage brutality." But, 
again I repeat, whatever may have been his vices, they cannot be 
advanced as an objection to a reformation in religion. The 
advocates of Popery are ever ready to bring Henry to the fore- 
ground, with the hope of leading the advocates of the Reformation 
to defend the character of this monarch ; as if his acts or defaults, 
alleged lust or cruelty, had anything whatever to do with the 
character of the Reformers, or was a slur on the Reformation 
itself. It is a hollow device, since the reformation of religion in 
England did not set in until after Henry's death. And so I pass 
a 82. b 83. 9 81. 



113 

on to the great sin laid at the door of this monarch, in the dis- 
solution and spoliation of the monasteries, the consideration of 
which I reserve for another chapter. 

Mr. Cobbett's great cry is Plunder ! Murder ! These he 
reiterates, garnished with epithets, which are so often repeated 
that they lose the force they are intended to convey, and being 
wholly unsupported by proofs, or any attempt at evidence, one is 
lost in wonderment at the cool and deliberate impudence of the 
writer. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES. 

The great sin laid at the door of Henry VIII. by Mr. Cobbett 
is his alleged robbery of the property of the monasteries. As 
Protestants, we have no responsibilities to be answerable for on 
this head ; Protestants had no part in this alleged great robbery 
of the Church, as it is admitted that the Reformation had not 
then commenced. If the confiscation of the property of monasteries 
was a robbery, Papists were robbing Papists. We look at it in 
the present day as an act which the State required to be carried 
ont, as well for the suppression of a crying evil as for financial pur- 
poses, a measure which every nation in Europe has since adopted, 
France, Italy, and even Spain. a Henry only proved himself to 
be in advance of his age, but with this great difference, that the 
evils attending the system in England were then past endurance. 
Modern confiscations in other countries have not proceeded on that 
ground, but with the avowed object of appropriation. Besides, Mr. 
Cobbett not only slurs over the true character of this confiscation, 
but omits an important fact. The Statute of Mortmain was specially 
passed to check the growth of these monastic establishments by 
preventing the concentration of wealth in ecclesiastical establish- 
ments ; but the cunning of the Priests sought methods for evading 
the law. 

The number of idle drones who inhabited the monasteries at the 
time of their suppression was upwards of fifty thousand. The 
population of the country was estimated at four millions and a half, b 
and, consequently, the monks and nuns were one ninetieth part 
of the population; but, as they were all grown up men and 

a The "Madrid Gazette," of "Wednesday, 9th July, 1835, contains a Eoyal 
Decree, under the authority of which nine hundred convents and monas- 
teries in Spain were suppressed. The seventh " Command" is as follows : — 
" The properties, revenues, and goods of all kinds whatever possessed by the 
monasteries and convents hereby suppressed, shall be applied henceforth to 
the extinction of the public debt and the payment of its interest." 

b See Chalmer's " Estimate of the Comparative Strength of Great Britain," 
p. 38. Quoted by Gilbart in the " Social Effects of the Reformation," from 
which I am now quoting. 



115 

women, they formed one forty-fifth part of the adults. Had the 
number increased in proportion to the population, we should have 
at the present day close upon two hundred thousand of these 
idlers in England alone, living on the fat of the land without doing 
one stroke of work, without labouring or affording any return to 
replenish the vacuum they would create. They appropriated, or 
possessed, according to Hume, one twentieth part of the land of 
the whole kingdom. 

From an account subsequently drawn up, the annual income of 
these houses suppressed by Henry must have then amounted to 
£273,000, and, at a moderate computation, would now yield at 
least £6,000,000 per annum. a Every idle man is a loss to the wealth 
of the country. "What must have been the effect when thousands 
were not only existing in idleness but living on the fat of the land, 
without earning one penny or adding one penny to its revenue or 
wealth. " England," says Mr. Cobbett, "more, perhaps, than any 
other country in Europe, abounded in such institutions, and these 
more richly endowed than anywhere else." b He " averages more 
than twenty to a county." But this is the lowest view of the case. 
The monastic establishments were pest houses and dens of iniquity. 

But were Henry's acts at all peculiar ? King John sequestered 
eighty-one priories ; Edward III. confiscated the properties of about 
thirty more. So early as 1360, the popular voice was raised 
against the monasteries. "Wycliffe denounced their existence as 
intolerable. In 1400, the House of Commons petitioned Henry IY. 
for the secularisation of their property ; and, to appease the public 
indignation, more than one hundred were suppressed, — an in- 
effectual warning to the rest, — and their possessions given to the 
King and his heirs. The Parliament of Henry V. secularised 
several alien priories, and attached their properties to the Crown. 
In the reign of Henry VI., a commission was granted by the 
Crown for the visitation of the Cistercian monasteries. In 1489, 
at the instigation of Cardinal Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Pope Innocent VIII. directed a general investigation throughout 
England into the conduct of the regular clergy, with powers to 
correct and punish. Under the advice of Bishop Fisher, certain 

a Sir John Sinclair's " History of the Public Revenue," vol. i, p. 184,, 
quoted by Mr. Gilbart, 
»»60. 



116 

monasteries were dissolved, on the ground of the immorality of 
their inmates. The hospital of St. John was dissolved for the same 
reason ; and also the nunnery of St. Rhadegund of Cambridge, the 
inmates having become notoriously profligate. The systematic 
vice and dissipation are described to have been something too 
shocking to dwell upon. In 1511, another ineffectual attempt 
was made to apply the moral besom ; and, twelve years later, 
Wolsey tried his hand at a reformation of morals and ecclesiastical 
abuses, but failed. 

Shortly after this, Cardinal Wolsey obtained a bull from 
Eome, dated 10th June, 1519, empowering him to visit all 
monasteries and all the clergy of England. In the preamble of 
this document, we find severe reflections against the manners and 
ignorance of the clergy, who were said in it to be delivered over to 
a reprobate mind ; and by another bull of Pope Clement, dated 3rd 
April, 1524, Wolsey was further authorised to suppress several 
specified monasteries and (so called) religious houses. a 

These powers were again revived by the Pope in November, 1528. 
He conferred on Wolsey and Gardiner together, the permission to 
examine the state of the monasteries, and suppress such as they 
thought fit. All the minor monasteries had been suppressed, and 
their properties confiscated and appropriated under no less 
authority than a Papal bull, b and by the Pope's license given in 
1527, eighteen years after Henry's accession to the throne. 

Complaints still being made of the profligacy of these establish- 
ments, Henry, in 1535, issued a Commission to examine into the 
state of the monasteries, with a power to liberate all below twenty- 
one years of age who desired to free themselves from these 
ecclesiastical prison-houses. The Commissioners reported that 
many poor wretches, who were above the age indicated, most 
piteously implored the Commissioners to free them from their in- 
carceration, revolting against these moral charnel-houses ; and 
"Wolsey reported to the Pope the frightful state of depravity which 
-was brought to light. Mr. Froude says of the Report : " If I were 
,to tell the truth, I should have first to warn all modest eyes to 

n See Burnet's " Hist, of the Kefonnation," pt. i, b. i, p. 36. Nares' 
, edition, 1830. 

bSee Eymer's "History," vol. vi, pt. ii, pp. 8-17, third edition, folio. 
^Hagge Comitis. 1745. 



117 

close the book, and read no further." The full Report of this 
visitation is lost. Burnet informs us that he had seen an extract 
from a part of it, concerning one hundred and forty-four houses 
that contained abominations in it equal to any that were in Sodom. 
Strype, in his 46th chapter of his Ecclesiastical Memoirs, has along 
account of the monks of Sawtry, Huntingdonshire, which thus 
commences : — " The unchaste behaviour of these religious men, and 
their abominable dissolute course with the wives and daughters of 
the laity, and withal, their imperious carriage towards the gentry, 
begot them hatred, and hastened their fall. 1 ' In the confessions 
made by the Prior and Benedictines of St. Andrew, in Northampton, 
we read that " in the most aggravating expressions that could be 
devised, they acknowledged their past ill life, for which the pit of 
hell was ready to swallow them up. They confessed that they had 
neglected the worship of God, lived in idleness, gluttony, and 
sensuality." " Think," exclaims Mr. Cobbett, in reference to these 
visitations, " of a respectable, peaceful, harmless, and pious family 
broken in upon, all of a sudden, by a brace of burglars, with murder 
written on their scowling brows, demanding an instant production 
of your title deeds, money and jewellery; imagine such a scene as 
this, and you have then some idea of the visitations of these 
monsters." a The Report was called the Black Booh ; hence, the 
origin of the expression ; and when laid before the House, there 
was one universal shout of " Down with them." But Henry 
gave them a chance ; and with his own hand, probably assisted by 
the much maligned Cromwell, prepared a Code of Regulations for 
the guidance of all ecclesiastical establishments, which was a 
wonderful production, characterized by strong common sense, piety, 
and moderation. 

Among other regulations, Henry prescribed that " women, of 
whatever state or degree," should be wholly excluded from the 
monasteries ; that the monks of each establishment should all dine 
together, " soberly, and without excess, with giving due thanks to 
God ; " that the president and his guests should have a separate 
table, but that "not over sumptuous and full of delicate and 
strange dishes, but honestly furnished with common meats ; " thus 
cutting at once' to the root of their leading vices. After ad- 
monishing them not to encourage "valiant, mighty, and idle 

a 159. 



118 

beggars and vagabonds, as commonly used to resort about such 
places," they were enjoined to distribute alms " largely and 
liberally," in accordance with the directions of the statutes founding 
the monastery ; that the monks were to have single beds?, and any 
boy or child was forbidden to associate with the monks, " other 
than to help them to mass." No man was allowed to wear the 
habit of the order under twenty-four years of age : that " they 
entice nor allure no men with suasion and blandyments to take 
the religion upon them ; item, that they shall show no reliques or 
feigned miracles for increase of lucre, but that they exhort pilgrims 
and strangers to give that to the poor that they thought to offer to 
their images or reliques." That men " learned in good and holy 
letters " be kept in each establishment to teach others, and that 
every day, for the " space of one hour, a lesson of Holy Scriptures 
be kept in the convent, to which all under pain shall resort ; " and 
that each of the brethren " after divine service done, read or hear 
somewhat of Holy Scriptures, or occupy himself in some such 
honest and laudable exercise." We then have the following 
direction, which I am sure my readers will excuse me for tran- 
scribing: — 

" Also that all and every brethren of this house shall observe the 
rules, statutes, and laudable customs of this religion, as far as 
they do agree with Holy Scriptures and the Word of God. And 
that the abbot, prior, or president of this monastery every day 
shall expound to his brethren, as plainly as may be, in English, a 
certain part of the rule that they have professed, and apply the 
same always to the doctrine of Christ, and not contrariwise ; and 
he shall teach them that the said rule and other their principles of 
religion (so far as they be laudable) be taken out of Holy Scripture; 
and he shall show them the places from whence they were derived ; 
and that their ceremonies and other observances of religion be 
none other things than as the first letters or principles and certain 
introductions to true Christianity, or to observe an order in the 
Church. And that true religion is not contained in apparel, 
manner of going, shaven heads, and such other marks ; nor in 
silence, fasting, uprising in the night, singing, and such other kind 
of ceremonies ; but in clearness of mind, pureness of living, Christ's 
faith not feigned, and brotherly charity, and true honouring of God 
in spirit and verity : and that those above said things were insti- 



119 

tuted and begun, that they, being first exercised in these, in process 
of time might ascend to those as by certain steps, that is to say, 
to the chief point and end of religion ; and therefore let them 
be diligently exhorted, that they do not continually stick and 
surcease in such ceremonies and observances, as though they 
had perfectly fulfilled the chief and outmost of the whole true 
religion ; but that when they had once passed such things, they 
endeavour themselves to higher things, and convert their minds 
from such external matters to more inward and deeper con- 
siderations, as the law of God and Christian religion doth teach 
and show. And that they assure not themselves of any reward or 
commodity any wise, by reason of such ceremonies and observances, 
except they refer all such to Christ, and for His sake observe them; 
and for that they might thereby the more easily keep such things 
as He hath commanded, as well to them as to all Christian 
people." a 

If Henry was the headstrong impetuous tyrant too frequently 
represented, or if he was actuated by the sordid desire of gain to 
appropriate to himself and his favourites the wealth of these mon- 
asteries, as asserted by Mr. Cobbett, his forbearance and anxiety to 
reform these monastic establishments was a strange mode of giving 
effect to these propensities. The Government actually offered the 
abbots and superiors handsome pensions on condition of their 
surrendering their establishments into the hands of the King. 
These pensions were not only offered, but (wherever accepted) 
most regularly and scrupulously paid. b 

Of the Parliament which passed the Act that the monasteries, 
with their lands, ornaments, jewels, goods, and chattels, should be 
given to the King, the House of Lords consisted of forty-six 
temporal peers, two archbishops, sixteen bishops, two guardians of 
spiritualities, twenty-six abbots, and two priors, every single one of 
them of the Eomish persuasion. 

Mr. Cobbett says " that they [the monastic properties] had all at 
once, by a mere touch of the Protestant wand, been converted into 

a The entire document, with many others on the same subject, is given in 
Burnet's " History of the Reformation," vol. iv, Records, b. iii, No. ii, p. 77, 
et seq. N ares' edition, 1830. 

»> See Hook's " Lives of the Archbishops," vol. vi, p. 75. London, 1868. 

c Hook's " Archbishops," vol. vi, p. 40. 1868. 



120 

estates for the nobles and rich men." a He goes so far as to assert 
that the proceeding was carried out without any "legal form;" 5 - 
" in this case there was no such thing." c He describes the process 
as "an act of sheer tyranny," " a pure Algerine proceeding ; " d but 
this would-be accurate historian contradicts these assertions by 
admitting that an Act of Parliament was obtained in 1536 for the 
suppression of the lesser monasteries, the preamble of which says 
that "there was manifest sin, yicious, carnal, and abominable Hying 
used and committed commonly in most small abbeys ; " e and in 
1539 another Act for the suppression of the greater/ This 
" Algerine proceeding " had at least the sanction of the Upper 
and Lower Houses, that of the King, and of the Lords Spiritual and 
Temporal, and Commons. What other " legal forms 1 '' Mr. Cobbett 
would have it is difficult to say. 

Henry's forbearance was of no avail ; he might as well have 
attempted to tame the Zebra or bridle the Unicorn as to reform the 
monastic establishments. The evil was beyond reformation. As 
Dr. Hook pithily remarks, " It was not to be supposed that either 
mansions or monasteries would be exempt from scandals, when the 
most scandalous place, the most corrupt, was the court of Rome. 
The age which could tolerate an Alexander VI., a Cassar Borgia, or 
a Julius II., must have been an age of deep corruption." The minor 
monasteries, the mortified members, were first lopped off. This 
warning was not appreciated; and, eventually, by one universal 
consent of the nation, Henry VIII. swept away the plague-spots 
from the land, — and for which let us thank God ! — retaining only 
the universities and a few leading establishments, exceptions to the 
general rule. 

Whether Henry, as is alleged, divided the spoils between himself 
and his courtiers, or expended the proceeds of the sales in strength- 
ening the fortifications of the country, which was then threatened by 
the united forces of France, Spain, and Italy, matters little in the 
light Mr. Cobbett desires to place the result on record; for this 
spoliation took place many years before the Reformation was. 
contemplated in this country, and is no more chargeable 
against Protestants or Protestantism than were the schisms in the- 
Papacy itself, which had brought disgrace and discord on the Church. 

a Part ii, 8. b 166. c 174. d 163. 

e 27 Henry VIII., c. xxyiii. f 162-167. 



121 

in successive ages. However the proceeds may have been applied, 
however we may condemn the agents, their mode of action, or their 
motives, there was but one opinion at the time with the great bulk 
of the people of England, namely, that the measure was inevitable, 
from the very abuses which invited it. The result was beneficial 
to the country. 

The destruction of monasteries laid open the strongholds of 
Popery, and destroyed its bulwarks. Eomanists, therefore, cannot 
recur to the subject without grief and indignation ; grief — that they 
should be deprived of their material advantages, indignation — that 
this wealth should have passed to lay hands. Mr. Cobbett joins 
in this cry, as if the money passed from Eomanist to Protestant 
hands ! Never was such a fallacy ; it passed from Romanists to 
Eomanists. Conceive the wealth attached to six hundred and 
forty-five monasteries, said to have been suppressed by Henry, 
slipping from monkish rapacity ! 

When we have described to us the various articles of untold cost- 
liness, and at the same time the enjoyment of the greatest luxuries 
by the monks, we cannot but observe the incompatibility of such 
luxuries and wealth with the alleged severity of monastic rules, and 
the inconsistency of such splendour with a mode of living incon- 
sistent with even a low degree of piety or sobriety of character ; 
particularly when we know that all this wealth and luxury were not 
accumulated by fair and honest labour, but by working on the fears 
and superstitions of the ignorant, the weak, and the dying. 

But when Mr. Cobbett lays at the door of the Reformers, or 
even of Henry VIII., the "robbery, devastation, and destruction " 
of the monastic property in Ireland, he is travelling very far out 
of the record. This spoliation took place in 1541, when Ireland 
was in fall revolt from England. No one will dare deny the loyalty 
of the Irish rebel leaders to the Pope of Eome, or their devotion 
to the Eoman religion at that time. They did not, however, 
hesitate to share in the spoils at the expense of their religion. 
In 1541, at a full Irish Parliament, assembled at Dublin, held by 
St. Leger, and at which O'Neil, Desmond, O'Brien, O'Donnell, 
Mac William, and other Irish leaders of the revolt against England 
were present and took an active part, an Act was passed confis- 
cating all the property belonging to the religious establishments of 
the countiy ; and the leading Irish nobles, without the slightest 



122 

compunction, divided the spoils among themselves, selling part at 
merely nominal prices. In order to secure to themselves their 
newly acquired property, and to enable them to acquire a recognised 
title, they waived all their former differences and animosities, 
acknowledged Henry's title as King of Ireland, and consented to 
submit themselves to the rule of their hereditary enemies, whom 
they had sworn shortly before to exterminate. 3 Surely our Roman 
Catholic fellow-countrymen are unjust when they reserve their 
invectives for Henry VIII. and English nobles, and forget that 
the Irish Romanists were equally guilty, but without even the 
excuse, if such were required, which Henry could advance. So 
blind does sectarian prejudice make us. 

Mr. Cobbett charges Cromwell as being the principal actor in 
these " spoliations." He charges him with every vice and pro- 
fligacy. He calls him a " brutal blacksmith, for whom ruffian was 
too gentle a term." b A Reformer he was, but a Protestant he was 
not. By some he is accused of being an infidel up to a certain 
date, " a kind of religious tradesman, who supported the party from 
which he could gain most ; or a statesman, to whom religion was a 
branch of politics." c Cromwell was, perhaps, no better than his 
contemporaries, and, perhaps, was no worse than most of them. 
He had examples before him — the contemporary Popes. But 
what has that to do with a reformation in religion ? Mr. Cobbett 
sadly overshoots his mark by abusing the actors in these pro- 
ceedings. It was, indeed, a Reformation, but not a reformation of 
the religion of the country, in which they were engaged. But then 
Mr. Cobbett abuses the " Reformation;" it is the Reformation of 
the Church in England he desires to condemn, which had not then 
begun, but which he artfully confounds with the overthrow of 
the Pope's usurpation, the suppression of the monasteries, and a 
transfer of the wealth of the latter to the King and, as is alleged, 
to his favourites. But there is an extraordinary fact to be ac- 
counted for, which puzzles the thoughtful Romanist. Queen Mary 
(of unhappy memory) and her Parliament restored Popery and all 
its rites and ceremonies. She repealed in succession the Acts of 
Henry which abrogated the power of the Pope, and those of 
Edward which abolished Popery. The Pope's power and supre- 

» " State Papers," vol. iii, pp. 295-6, 334, 392, 399, 463-5, 474. 
b 158. c Hook's " Lives of the Archbishops," vol. vi, p. 89. 



123 

macy were restored, but the "plundered" property was retained. 
Neither the Lords nor Commons would grant the Pope anything 
until he confirmed the titles to the properties purchased by them 
under Henry's confiscations. The Act of Parliament (1 & 2 Phil. 
& Mary, c. 8,) which restored the Pope's power in England con- 
firmed the title of the " plunderers," and freed them from all 
ecclesiastical censures. It enacted "that all holders of Church 
property should keep it, and that any person who should attempt 
to molest or disturb them therein should be deemed guilty of 
praemunire and be punished accordingly." a This is Mr. Cobbett's 
explanation, but he stops short at this point. The bargain, as 
Strype has it, b was struck between the Pope and Parliament. 
Cardinal Pole, as the Pope's Legate, in his master's name ratified 
that bargain, and gave the " plunderers " a dispensation from their 
iniquities, with plenary absolution, and obtained a special bull from 
Pope Paul IV. to enable him to act in this behalf. c The Romanist 
historian Dodd d says, that the Parliament was not satisfied with 
the general Bull of Dispensation which had been issued, but insisted 
on a special bull to meet their particular case, which was granted. 
Lord Petre, the Queen's Secretary of State, was still more parti- 
cular, for he obtained from Pope Paul IV., in 1555, a special bull 
for himself, confirming his title in particular, and was so careful in 
the matter that he got his lands specially designated by name in 
the Bull of Dispensation. 6 But here peeps out again the Jesuit 
prompter of Mr. Cobbett. Something must be said on the subject of 
the Act of Parliament passed by Mary. The position was a difficult 
one for the Jesuit, so he says, " It doubtless went to the heart of 
the Queen to assent to this Act, which was the very worst deed 
of her whole reign, the monstrously exaggerated fires of Smithfield 
not excepted." f But what of the Pope's approbation, ratification, 

a 232. 

b Strype's " Ecclesiastical Memorials," vol. iii, c. six, pp. 161, 162, an. 
1554. London, 1721. 

c Strype's " Bccl. Mem.," vol. iii, p. 159 ; and tlie Bull of Dispensation is 
given in the " Collection" of Documents, in the same volume, p. 60, and in 
the " Harleyan Miscellany," vol. vii, pp. 267-280. London, 1811. Wilkins' 
" Concilia," iv, 1021 Heylin's "Ecclesia Restaurata," pp. 141-2, vol. i. 
Cambridge, 1849. 

d Vol. ii, p. 115. Brussels, 1739. 

p Strype, as above, vol. iii, p. 162. f 233. 



124 

dispensation and absolution ? Mr. Cobbett and his prompter find 
it most convenient to be silent on that part of the transaction. 
The amount of ignorance, even among many at the present day, on 
this subject is truly surprising ; but let it be proclaimed " from 
the house-top " that the alleged Reformation plunderers had the 
direct sanction, dispensation and absolution of the Pope of Rome 
himself ! 

Thus then was this act of spoliation, which Mr. Cobbett makes 
the burden of his complaint and vituperation against the Re- 
formers, ratified in the most complete and solemn manner by the 
Pope himself; he taking in exchange, what he considered of greater 
importance to himself, the resumption of ecclesiastical supremacy 
over this country. When Henry VIII. threw off the Papal yoke, 
the Pope offered to confirm his marriage with Anne Boleyn, and 
legitimise his issue, if Henry would consent to admit Papal 
authority ; but Henry refused : the Pope offered to Elizabeth to 
acknowledge her legitimacy, and her Reformed Liturgy, if she 
would consent to take the Reformation at his hands and acknow- 
ledge his supremacy ; she also refused : but the bigoted Popish 
Mary and her Parliament, all Papists, took the bribe offered by 
the Pope to them, and ratified the above degrading and sordid 
bargain, and in this the whole of the Bishops concurred. This is 
the transaction which meets Mr. Cobbett's special commendation, 
for thereby England once again became " Catholic ! " to his great 
delight ! But the Pope was short-sighted ; for what could assumed 
power avail without wealth and a paid and pampered priestly army 
to do his behest ? Hume justly estimates the transaction, he 
observes : — 

" It now appeared that, notwithstanding the efforts of the Queen 
and King (Mary and Philip), the power of the Papacy was effectu- 
ally suppressed in England, and invincible barriers fixed against its 
re-establishment. For though the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastics 
was for the present restored, their property, on which their power 
much depended, was irretrievably lost, and no hopes remained of 
recovering it. Even these arbitrary, powerful, and bigoted princes, 
while the transactions were yet recent, could not regain to the 
Church her possessions so lately vanished from her; and no expe- 
dients were left to the clergy for enriching themselves but those 
which they had at first practised, and which had required many 



125 

ages of ignorance, barbarism, and superstition to produce this 
effect on mankind." a 

Mr. Cobbett makes a blunder (probably misled by his prompter) 
-when he calls in aid Bishop Tanner (whose name he prints in 
capitals) to contradict Hume in favour of monastic establishments. 
The passage, so ostentatiously quoted and dwelt upon by Cobbett in 
paragraph 133, is not from any part of Bishop Tanner's work at all. 
The original work on monasteries, entitled Notitia Monastica, with 
the Bishop's own preface, was published in 1695, and we search 
in vain for the quoted passage. Bishop Tanner was Bishop of St. 
Asaph in the reign of George II. One John Tanner, M.A., Vicar 
of Lowestoft, in Suffolk, published the Bishop's work in 1744, 
with many additions and a preface of his own. It is from this 
preface Mr. Cobbett has borrowed his matter, and foisted it on to 
the good Bishop. But in the said Preface to the Cambridge 
edition, 1787, p. xxvi, of the Bishop's work, John Tanner makes 
the following observation, " I have now only to give some account 
of this work, and the part I have in it. The Author [i. e. the 
Bishop], by writing on this subject, did not intend either to recom- 
mend a monastic state or to lament the loss of it, but only, for the 
sake of all lovers of antiquities, to give a short view and account 
of those houses which once made so great a figure in this kingdom." 
Mr. Cobbett proposes to quote from the " Preface, pages xix, xx, 
and xxi." That preface, I have shown, was written by the Eev. John 
Tanner, but Mr. Cobbett stops short of page xxi. At page xxi this 
same Bev. John Tanner, on whom Mr. Cobbett, in fact, relies, 
gives five cogent reasons against these monastic establishments : — 

" On the other hand," he says, " it must be confessed : First. — 
That the regulars [the monks] were very injurious to the secular and 
parochial clergy ;" giving, as reasons, that they got the best prebends 
and benefices, to hold which they obtained dispensations ; they also 
had pensions out of other livings, and exemption from the jurisdic- 
tion of the bishops and from paying tithes. u Secondly. — These 
houses of the monks and friars seem to have been injurious to the 
nation in general : — 1st. By depriving the public of so many hands 
as might have been serviceable to it in proper employments. 2nd. 
By an unfair and ungenerous way of trading. 3rd. By their houses 

a Hume's " History of England," c. xxxvi, an. 1551, p. 179, vol. iii. 179G. 



126 

or churches being sanctuaries for all manner of offenders. Thirdly. — 
Many of the religious were certainly loose and vicious, and the 
denying them marriage probably contributed towards it, &c, &c. 
Fourthly. — The casting off the Pope's supremacy was urged for 
casting off the monks, who, notwithstanding their subscriptions, 
were generally thought to be against it in their hearts, and ready 
to join any foreign Power which should invade the nation while the 
King (Henry VIII.) was excommunicated by the Pope. Fifthly. — 
Their revenues not employed according to the intent and design of 
the donors, was also alleged against them ; but the discovery of 
many cheats in images, of many feigned miracles, and counterfeit 
relicks, brought the monks everywhere into great disgrace, and 
contributed towards their overthrow." — (pp. xxi. xxiii.) 

Mr. Cobbett's boasted " sacred regard for historic truth" seems 
to have failed him here at least, for not only Bishop Tanner did 
not write this passage he parades so triumphantly before us in in- 
verted commas, but the editor of the Bishop's " laborious account of 
the several monastic institutions," whom Mr. Cobbett has mis- 
taken for the author, is himself neither a supporter nor favourer of 
monks and monasteries ; and it has suited Mr. Cobbett's purpose 
to suppress the editor's condemnations, which I have supplemented 
to Mr. Cobbett's extract. He begs his " friends," " as they read 
Bishop Tanner 's description, to keep Hume's description constantly 
in mind;" a but, as he does not give Hume's description, I 
will supplement that also. Speaking of the monks, and of the 
reports of the visitors, Hume says : — " It is safest to credit the 
existence of vices naturally connected with the very institutions of 
the monastic life. The cruel and inveterate factions and quarrels, 
therefore,, which the Commissioners mentioned are very credible 
among men who, being confined together within the same walls, 
can never forget their mutual animosities, and who, being cut off 
from all the most endearing connexions of nature, are commonly 
cursed with hearts more selfish, and tempers more unrelenting, than 
fall to the share of other men. The pious frauds, practised to 
increase the devotion and liberality of the people, may be regarded 
as certain in an order founded in illusions, lies, and superstitions. 
The supine idleness also, and its attendant profound ignorance, 
with which the convents were reproached, admit of no question. 

•132. 



127 

No manly or elegant knowledge could be expected among men whose 
life, condemned to a tedious uniformity, and deprived of all emula- 
tion, afforded nothing to raise the mind or cultivate the genius." 
But I must, in justice to Mr. Cobbett, add, that he declares Hume 
to be an " unfeeling and malignant, lying historian." a 

Some potent influence must have been at work to have created 
such a revolution in Mr. Cobbett's opinions. Cobbett was once 
the avowed mortal enemy of all corruptions in Church and State. 
We have seen that his estimation of monastic establishments 
and of their inmates was well pronounced. He said, " In place 
of meriting the appellation grounded on the tender idea of a 
brood of innocent little creatures collected under the wings of 
the fondest of mothers, the convents of the monks were wasps' 
nests, whence the lazy and cruel inhabitants sallied forth to rob 
and sting, to annoy, persecute, and murder the industrious, 
laborious, and provident bees." b And again: " The monks and 
friars were a set of impostors. With all their tricks, they had 
but one single object in view, namely, that of living well upon the 
labour of others. This was with them the law and the gospel." c 
In February, 1825 (the date of the chapter we are now upon), Mr. 
Cobbett appears to have changed his opinions very considerably. 
In 1821 he was the champion of freedom in religion as well as 
politics, a friend of the liberties of his country, and the sworn 
enemy of all corruptions in Church or State, and of Eomish 
superstition in particular. In 1825 a pair of geld spectacles were 
no doubt presented to him by his Popish friends. It is astonishing 
the effect precious metals have on the mental and perceptive 
faculties of right and wrong. It is human nature ! Mr. Cobbett 
was but man ! 

Mr. Cobbett is wrathful when we speak of the " monkish igno- 
rance of the Middle Ages." He would have us believe, with Bishop 
Tanner, that the multiplication of manuscripts is a sign of the 
literary taste of the age, at least among the monks. I ask what 
benefit to science or learning have these manuscripts afforded ? A 
multiplication of the writings of the old Christian Fathers have 
only led to perplexities and discords, for each transcriber added or 

» See ante, p. 2. 

b Cobbett's "Political Kegister," vol. xxxii, p. 1068. London, Nov., 1817. 

c Ibid, vol. xxxviii, p. 924. January, 1821. 



128 

changed according to his whim. It was, after all, only a few 
monasteries that were so employed. How many valuable manu- 
scripts were obliterated for the sake of the vellum on which to 
transcribe some lying legends or corrupted old Christian writers ! 
But what was the actual state of the clergy in these days ? Listen 
to the historian Dr. Robertson, in his History of the Reign of the 
Emperor Charles V., a a contemporary of Henry VIII. In his 
chapter on " A View of the State of Europe," he says : — 

" Literature, science, taste, were words little in use during the 
ages which we are contemplating; or, if they occur at any time, 
eminence in them is ascribed to persons and productions so con- 
temptible that it appears their true import was little understood. 
Many of the clergy did not understand the breviary which they 
were obliged to recite ; some of them could scarcely read it. 

" Innumerable proofs of this might be produced. Many distin- 
guished ecclesiastics could not subscribe the canons of those Councils 
in which they sat as members. One of the questions appointed by 
the canons to be put to persons who were candidates for orders was 
this : ' Whether they could read the gospels and epistles and explain 
the sense of them, at least literally ? ' Alfred the Great complained 
that from the Humber to the Thames there was not a priest who 
understood the liturgy in his mother tongue, or who could translate 
the easiest piece of Latin ; and that from the Thames to the sea 
the ecclesiastics were still more ignorant. The ignorance of the 
clergy is quaintly described by an author of the dark ages: — 
1 Potius dediti gulee quam glossa? ; potius colligunt libros quam 
legunt libros ; libentius intuentur Martham quam Marcum ; malunt 
legere in Salmone quam in Solomone ;'" which, freely translated, 
means that the monks preferred rather to treat the gullet than the 
tongue; rather collect books than read them; would prefer ogling 
Martha than contemplating Mark ; would rather read the pages of 
" Salmone " than those of Solomon. 

At the time when the Reformation, properly so called, had just 
dawned, and during the reign of Queen Mary, the state of gross 
ignorance of the clergy in this country, if we may take the diocese 
of Gloucester as a fair sample, was something beyond conception. 
We find it recorded that Bishop Hooper, who succeeded to the 
see of Gloucester in 1550, and was martyred in 1554, issued 

a London, 1796, vol. i, p. 17 ; and note x, pp. 217, 218. 



129 

"interrogatories and examinations of the ministers and of their 
conversation, to be required and known by the parishioners." The 
result is given at the foot of these " interrogatories." a Of 311 
of the clergy 168 were unable to repeat the Ten Commandments: 
31 of that number were further unable to state in what part of 
the Scriptures they were to be found ; there were 40 who could 
not tell when the Lord's Prayer was written, and 31 of this number 
ignorant who was its author ! 

And when we refer to what Mr. Cobbett would pretend to admire 
in the industry of the transcribers of those days, we find the utter 
barbarism of some legendary tale of a fictitious saint written with 
painful quaintness on some parchments from which the writings of 
some elegant or classical Latin author had been erased ! Con- 
sidering their leisure and total absence of all secular occupations, 
abounding (as Mr. Cobbett represents them) in wealth, it were hard 
indeed if the more intellectual pursuits did not occupy some of their 
hours. But what have they left us of any real value? I speak of 
the monks in this country from the time of William I. to Henry 
VIII. What improvements in science have they handed clown to 
us ? To point to a Roger Bacon is only to say that a great genius 
existed in those days ; but such a genius would have, and has, 
existed without the monasteries. Bishop Tanner, to whom Mr. 
Cobbett appealed as an authority on this matter, in his own original 
Preface to his Notitia Monastica, edit. 1695, expresses himself with 
candour and moderation on this subject. He says : " I pretend not 
to justify the ignorance of some of them [the monks], or to compare 
the knowledge of those dark ages with that of our own times ; but 
it is my desire only to shew that there were some persons among 
the monks, who were (allowance being made for the times in which 
they lived) very good scholars themselves, and encouragers of 
learning in others." And in another part of the same Preface he 
says : " But I would not be thought, in this, or any other expression 
that may be found in this discourse, in the least to vindicate the 
superstitions or vices of the monks, and, indeed, considering the pro- 
visions that are made in the Universities for the encouragement 
and attainment of learning, and the many hospitals that have been 
since the Reformation built for the relief of the poor, there is less 

a See Parker Society's edition of Bishop Hooper's Works, p. 151. Cam- 
bridge, 1852. 

K 



130 

reason to lament their loss." There can be no question of the truth 
of this remark ; and it would scarcely need quoting but that Mr. 
Cobbett appeals to Bishop Tanner as an authority on this very 
subject, and perpetually brings in contrast the Pre-Eeformation days 
■with the Post- Reformation period, to the alleged great advantage 
of the former. 

Then we are told of the hospitalities of the monasteries ! They 
could afford it, since they derived their large revenues without 
labour; but this had its corresponding evil, as it encouraged " sturdy 
beggars," and special legislative enactments were passed to suppress 
and punish these idle vagabonds. Mr. Cobbett points in derisive 
triumph to the alleged fact that, previously to the Reformation, when 
monasteries flourished, there were no poor-laws and there was no 
national debt, and for these we have to thank the " Reformation 
gentry." It is true that we have had a reformation in the religion 
of the Anglican Church, and it is equally true we have now poor- 
laws and a national debt ; but, save his bare assertion, he advances 
nothing to connect the cause with the alleged effects, any more 
than the consumption of tobacco and potatoes in this country are 
traceable to the same source, as the Reformation was equally ante- 
cedent to both these events ! These monastic establishments, under 
the pretence of being abodes devoted to religious uses, were, in fact, 
dens of corruption and political nuisances, and were a part of the 
system of the Roman Church in this country. 

At the present day we look at the confiscations as transfers of, 
or in fact bringing back, property from one class of Romanists to 
another, from clerical to lay hands, but in which the Reformers took 
no part, nor did they derive any personal benefits ; but the result, 
under the guidance of Providence, was — to diminish the power of the 
Priesthood and demolish one of the great bulwarks of the Papacy, 
following as it did the suppression of the Pope's spiritual reign in 
this country. We admit, however, that thereby a way was made 
for the Reformation, which speedily followed. But it is one of the 
boldest tamperings with history to attribute this spoliation of 
ecclesiastical property to the Reformers properly so called. 



CHAPTER V. 

EDWARD VI. 

"We now arrive at the Seventh Letter, which is more specially- 
devoted to the abuse of the Reformation and the Reformers during 
the reign of Edward VI. To call it a history of that period would 
be ludicrously absurd. The process of calmly analysing statements 
with the view of extracting truth, of separating the faults of actors 
from the goodness of the cause in which they acted, of writing 
without disguise on the one hand, or exaggeration on the other, 
would not suit Mr. Cobbett's object, even if he were possessed of 
mental capacity sufficient (presuming, of course, he had not accepted 
a bribe,) for the task. Dr. Hook, Dean of Chichester, in his " Lives 
of the Archbishops of Canterbury," a thus expresses himself of Mr. 
Cobbett and his book : — " But even worse than this was the 
infamous proceeding of hiring Cobbett to employ his powerful pen 
to write a ' History of the Reformation,' in which every refuted 
fact is asserted as an indisputable historical statement. But even 
worse than this is the fact, that this book of lies is still industriously 
circulated by leading men of the Romish persuasion. It is repre- 
sented to foreigners as the only authentic history of the English 
Reformation. We fear not the result, for we Jcnoiv who is the father 
of the lies ; but such conduct on the part of those who profess to 
call themselves Christians afflicts the hearts of all who serve the 
God of Truth." To place a few facts, so distorted and misrepre- 
sented as to bear the least possible resemblance to truth, in the midst 
of an overwhelming verbiage of sneers, sarcasms, ribaldry, and coarse 
vulgarity, was more consonant with his feelings and more likely to do 
mischief with the uneducated mass. Accordingly we find the first 
fourteen paragraphs of this chapter a little more than an unbroken 
tirade of low scurrility, a few specimens of which I have already 
given in my introductory chapter, 15 and which he introduced with 
the solemn declaration that " the Reformation was engendered in 
beastly lust, brought forth in hypocrisy and perfidy, and cherished 

a Second series, vol. u. p. 295, London, 186S. 
»> 192 to 205. c £3. 

X 2 



132 

and fed by plunder, devastation, and by rivers of innocent English 
and Irish blood." a "There was not a man among them [the 
Reformers] whose acts did not merit a halter." b The vials of 
Mr. Cobbett's wrath are specially poured on the devoted head of 
this youthful King and his advisers. He was the first Protestant 
monarch ; the King under whom a reformation of doctrine was first 
introduced in our Church. But it was the same Church which con- 
tinued to exist ; the same fundamental doctrines, the characteristics 
of the Christian Church, embodied in the only known Christian 
creeds (that of Pope Pius was not then published) were retained, and 
the authority of the first four General Councils was fully acknow- 
ledged. " I make not the least doubt in the world," observed 
Bramhall, " but that the Church of England before the Reforma- 
tion and the Church of England after the Reformation are as 
much the same Church as a garden before it is weeded and after it 
is weeded is the same garden, or a vine before it is pruned and 
after it is pruned and freed from the luxuriant branches is one and 
the same vine." Such a Church, as Dr. Hook justly observes, had 
an undoubted right to reform itself. The reformation in religion 
set in early in 1548. All images were directed to be removed from 
churches ; the doctrine of transubstantiation and the mass, as also 
private masses and the law against priestly marriages, were 
abolished ; the free use of Scripture was allowed to all ; the 
service of the Church was conducted in the English language ; and 
purgatory, indulgences, and Rome's trafficking in souls were pro- 
hibited. All this was, no doubt, very galling to the Popish priest- 
hood, and Edward has, therefore, come in for his share of abuse. 
But in these reforms, and in the necessary composition of a revised 
liturgy, "they proceeded," says Hume, (c. 34, a.d. 1549,) " with 
moderation in this delicate undertaking ; they retained as much of 
the mass as the Reformers would permit ; they indulged nothing 
to the spirit of contradiction, which so naturally takes place in all 
great innovations," 

To style Edward on every occasion " a saint " is of course intended 
by Mr. Cobbett for sarcasm. It is not necessary for the cause of 
the Reformation that he should really be so. Nor will I attempt to 
deny that he or his advisers and " protectors " might be tainted 
with the spirit of the Church which they were then reforming. The 
» 192. b 200. 



133 

predominant vice was a spirit of religious persecution. It would 
be unreasonable to expect that the old leaven could be at once 
eradicated. They were all fallible men. Hume sums up bis 
chapter on this reign with the following striking passage : — 

" All the English historians dwell with pleasure on the excellent 
qualities of this young Prince, whom the flattering promises of 
hope, joined to many real virtues, had made an object of tender 
affection to the public. He possessed mildness of disposition, 
application to study and business, a capacity to learn and judge, 
and an attachment to equity and justice. He seems only to have 
contracted, from his education and from the genius of the age in 
which he lived, too much of a narrow prepossession in matters of 
religion, which made him incline somewhat to bigotry and perse- 
cution. But as the bigotry of the Protestants, less governed by 
priests, lies under more restraints than that of [Roman] Catholics, 
the effects of this malignant quality were the less to be apprehended, 
if a longer life had been granted to young Edward." 

And Fuller, in his " Church History " (Book vii. s. 1) : — 

" No pen passeth by him without praising him, though none 
praising him to his full deserts." 

The difficulties of Edward's position were no doubt increased by 
the fact that his " protectors," the executors appointed by his 
father's will, sixteen in number, were a mixed body of Romanists 
and Reformers. Separate and opposing influences were put in 
action. Though the Reformation was setting in, light and know- 
ledge and an entire appreciation of truth did not come all at once, 
by sudden inspiration. There were two other opposing elements 
to complicate matters. There was a Reforming Archbishop, 
Cranmer, and there was Bishop Gardiner, essentially Romish, and 
strenuously opposed to all change. In this reign the fanatic Joan 
Bocher — known as Joan of Kent — was in 1550 burnt as a heretic 
for denying the incarnation of Christ of the Virgin Mary, and Van 
Paris suffered for the like offence. They were condemned under 
an existing Act of Parliament, 2 Henry IV. c. 15, passed in Popish 
times. No one will attempt to justify these executions, but on the 
other hand, how many have been massacred and burnt by Papists for 
denying some Popish doctrine ? Stow informs us that two priests 
were " condemned for the keeping of certain relics." The relic was 
-an arm, bearing on it an inscription that it belonged to one who had 



134 

" suffered martyrdom under King Henry VIII." a This was 
deemed treason. In Mary's reign, in 1555, John Barnard and 
John Walshe were condemned by an order of the Privy Council 
for carrying about the bones, as relics, of one Pigott (who had been 
burnt for his religion), shewing them to the people, " and persuading 
them to stand by their [alleged] error." Bishops Gardiner, Heath, 
and Day were imprisoned for various acts of recusancy by Edward's 
Council. Gardiner actually called his judges heretics. Bishop 
Tunstal, by reason of his forbearance and moderation in his 
opposition to the reforms, was respected by Somerset, but when 
Northumberland gained the ascendency, he was thrown into prison ; 
Cranmer, however, opposed the Bill of Attainder against him. 
Then, again, we find that two chaplains and three domestics of the 
Princess Mary were imprisoned for celebrating and hearing mass 
contrary to the order of the Privy Council. 5 In the King's journal 
there is mention of one person and " two children " imprisoned for 
recusancy. All these were undoubtedly religious persecutions. 
But Bonner's sufferings were provoked by his insolent temper ; and 
Tunstal had given encouragement to a project for an insurrection. 
Some Anabaptists were put down by the Church Courts and a Royal 
Commission, but in this Romanists were associated with Cranmer/ 1 
Hooper was imprisoned a short time for his intemperate opposition 
to the use of ecclesiastical vestments. e These I believe to be all 
the acts of persecution brought against the King and his advisers. 
It is as well to let the worst be known and the just reprobation 
awarded ; but let these acts, also, be compared with the blood-stained 
pages of contemporaneous history. The wholesal e persecution, purely 
for religion's sake, by the Papists was truly appalling. Paul Sarpi, 
a Romanist, tells us that no less than 50,000 persons, in the 
Netherlands alone, were hung, beheaded, buried or burnt alive, on 
account of their reforming principle s. f Grotius, a most trust- 
worthy author, places the number nearly double, s The massacre 

a Annal., p. 594, col. ii. London, 1631. 

h Dodd's " Church History." Tierney's edition, 1839, app. xxx, pp. ccvi„ 
ccxxii. 
c See Burnet's Collection, pt. ii, b. ii. 

d Strype's "Mem. Eccl.," b. ii, c. xv, p. 365. Edition, 1721. 
e Colliers " Eccl. Hist,," pt. ii, b. iv, p. 295. Folio edition. 
f " Hist. Concl. Trid.," lib. v, p. 335. Aug. Trin., 1620. 
s "Annal. de Reb. Belg.," lib. i, p. 17. Amst., 1658. 



135 

of the Huguenots, amounted in a few days to 40,000. a The 
" burnings " during Mary's reign were a deep stain on the 
history of our country, but then, as Mr. Cobbett admits, " the 
"Catholic [Romish] code was consistent. It said that there was but 
one true religion, and it punished as offenders those who dared 
openly to profess any opinion contrary to that religion." b " When 
we compare," says Dr. Hook, " the legislation and the acts of the 
Government of Edward's reign with those of Queen Mary, we 
cannot fail to admire the mildness and leniency, comparatively 
speaking, of both Somerset and Cranmer. The more credit is due 
to them because, for their lenity, they were despised by their enemies 
and censured by their friends." But persecution is not the crime 
laid specially to the charge of Edward and his advisers. Dodd, 
the Roman Catholic historian, says that Edward was " apparently 
wholly taken up with that project [the Reformation] ; he seemed 
not inclined to shed blood on that account, and therefore no san- 
guinary, but only penal, laws were executed upon such as stood 
off." d The general charge brought by Mr. Cobbett is, that this 
" Reformation reign was a reign of robbery and hypocrisy, without 
anything to be compared with them, and anything in any country 
or in any age. Religion, conscience, was always the pretext." e 
" The Reformation was not the work of virtue, of fanaticism, of 
error, of ambition, but a love of plunder." f 

When we contemplate the work of devastation and plunder laid 
at the door of Henry VIII., and the enormous wealth that Mr. 
Cobbett himself states passed into his hands, what must have been 
the aggregate wealth of the monasteries ? I am not aware that 
the charge is — that the Church property generally was confiscated ; 
nevertheless it is represented that the plunder acquired by Edward 
in his short reign of seven years was beyond anything to be com- 
pared, even in any country in any age ! Mr. Cobbett, in the second 
part of his book, gives a detailed list of the confiscated property 
during Henry's reign, but in this reign of Edward, he is very 

a D'Avila, " Civil Wars of France," Eng. Tr., b. v, ann. 1572, p. 184, 
London, 1678. See also Scudamore's " England and Rome." London, 1855. 
Letter vi, section iii. 

^204. 

c "Lives of the "Archbishops," vol. ii, 2nd series, p. 234. London, 1868. 

(1 Dodd's " Church History." Tierney's edition, 1834, vol. ii, p. 49. 

« 199. f 201. 



136 

general; all lie says is, " the old tyrant [Henry] had, in certain 
cases, enabled his minions to rob the bishoprics ; but, now, there 
was a grand swoop at them. The Protector took the lead, and 
his example was followed by others. They took so much from 
one, so much from another, and some they wholly suppressed, as 
that of Westminster, and took their estates to themselves. There 
were many chantries (private property to all intents and purposes), 
free chapels, also private property, alms-houses, hospitals, guilds, 
or fraternities, the property of which was as much private property 
as the funds of any Friendly Society now are. All these became 
lawful plunder" a 

If it be as represented by Mr. Cobbett, the abuse arising from 
the concentration of property in the Church was a sufficient justi- 
fication for the spoliation, and at this distance of time, and seeing 
that every other nation in Europe has followed the example, we 
contemplate the act as one of sound political wisdom. And so, 
no doubt, Mr. Cobbett thought until he was hired to write down 
the Reformation. But it is something new to be told that 
Cranmer aided or abetted or took any interest in the plunder. He 
himself was a considerable sufferer by the Act in Henry's reign. b 
In the reign of Edward he opposed the grant of chantry lands pass- 
ing to the King ; he desired to have them preserved until the King 
came of age, when he might with better judgment dispose them for 
the maintenance of the poor clergy. c 

Both he and Ridley fell into great displeasure " with those who 
governed for opposing as much as they could, though to no effect, 
the spoil of the Church goods." d It was reserved, it appears, for 
Mr. Cobbett to make the discovery that Archbishop Cranmer had 
an interest in the plunder ! These "monstrous effects" resulted 
from giving the " supremacy " to a child ! Well, there was once a 
boy Pope. But, as our kings disclaimed any participation in the 
administration of ecclesiastical rites or duties, the alleged monstrous 
effects had no relation to the Reformation in religion ! 

a 202. 

i> See Strype's "Cranmer," b. ii, ch. xxix, p. 281. Folio edition; and 
Stat. 37 Henry VIII., c. xvi. 

c See Burnet's " Hist, of the Reformation," part ii, b. i, vol. ii, p. 72, 
Nares' Edit. 

d Strype's " Cranmer," b. iii, ch. xxxvi, p. 455. Folio edition. 



137 

To pass from general to specific charges, I propose to deal with 
a few distorted facts. 

The first misrepresentation we have to note is in paragraph 112, 
affecting Henry VIII. rather than Edward, wherein Mr. Cobbett 
says, "that Queen Jane Seymour, in 1537, brought Henry a son, 
who was afterwards king, under the title of Edward VI., but that 
the mother died in childbed, and had her body ripped up to preserve 
the child." If true, what had that to do with the Reformation? 
The alleged event took place in essentially Popish times, when 
Henry was a Romanist. But the calumny has been triumphantly 
refuted by the production of a letter which is now in the Cotton 
library, written by Queen Jane to the Council, giving them an 
account of her happy delivery. She did not die until twelve days 
after the birth of Edward, and there is a certificate in the same 
library from her physicians of the state of the Queen's health a 
few days before her death, which makes no mention of this scan- 
dalous charge, the invention of the Jesuit Sanders, and copied by 
Sir Richard Baker in his Chronicles, and from thence transferred 
to the pages of Mr. Cobbett. 

' Mr. Cobbett, a speaking of the will of Henry VIII., says, " To 
carry this will into execution, and to govern the kingdom until 
Edward, who was then ten years of age, should be eighteen, there 
were sixteen executors appointed, amongst whom was Seymour, 
Earl of Hertford, and the ' honest Cranmer.' " Now, he might as 
well have added that these executors were some of them Papists 
and others inclined to Protestantism, some of them Ecclesiastics 
and others laymen, so that King Henry VIII. (who himself lived 
and died a Roman Catholic) had given no definite idea of his wishes, 
either as to the education of his son or the management of his 
kingdom. The executors were " to administer the affairs of the 
kingdom as they should judge fit." Mr. Cobbett might also have 
added that, at the King's death, the whole country was in a tran- 
sition state, disgusted with Popery, and yet not fully resolved as 
to the nature and extent of the requisite change ; consequently, it 
is only natural to expect and to find variations, and even real or 
apparent inconsistencies and faults, in the conduct of good and con- 
scientious leaders. The true Reformers were cautious and honest 
men, and proceeded step by step (as prudence and good sense 

a 195. 



138 

clearly required), according as their own religious and political 
views became gradually clearer, and as the general feeling of the 
people would support them. 

" These sixteen worthies," says Mr. Cobbett, " began by taking, 
in the most solemn manner, an oath to stand to and maintain the 
last will of their master." Suppose that were so, what was there 
wrong in such a proceeding ? 

" Their second act was to break that oath, by making Hertford, 
who was a brother of Jane Seymour, the King's mother, Protector." 
How was that a violation of their oath ? What more natural or 
more unavoidable than that one out of the sixteen should become a 
kind of president or chief of this Council, and more especially 
governor of the young King ? And who so proper a person as his 
nearest relative to be such governor ? How could the whole sixteen 
act as governors of the King's person? How could the whole 
sixteen act as Protectors of the Realm, although all might consult 
and unite in all important measures ? 

" Their next step was to give new peerages to themselves." This 
creation of new peers was only a fulfilment of the well known 
intention of Henry VIII., postponed by the scruples of some of the 
parties, but principally by the King's sickness which resulted in 
his death. 

" The fourth, to award to the new peers grants of the public 
money." The grant of money was a necessary consequence of the 
creation. But according to Mr. Cobbett's own statement, public 
money was not the source, for he says that chantries and free 
chapels (which were used for the grant) were private property. a 

Moreover, the alienation of chantry lands was principally effected, 
as I have shewn, in the reign of Henry VIII. ; and when the bill 
for giving some of these lands to King Edward VI. was before the 
House of Lords (a.d. 1549), Cranmer joined the Roman Catholic 
Bishops in opposing it, and himself voted against it. 

" The fifth was to lay aside at the Coronation the ancient 
English custom of ashing the people if they were willing to have and 
obey the King" This assertion, if not actually in very words, 
is, in spirit and substance, untrue. The form of Coronation of 
Edward VI., as given in the Collection of Records, by Burnet 
and Collier, shews that the following words were used: — " Will ye 

»202. 



139 

serve at this time and give your goodwills and assents to the same 
consecration, inunction, and coronation, as by your duty of allegiance 
ye be bound to do ? The people to answer — Yea, yea, yea, King 
Edward, King Edward, King Edward." 

The sixth violation of their oath by the executors was, according 
to Cobbett, "to attend at a solemn high mass." How was this 
any violation of their oath ? — and what other public religious service 
could they have then attended — if, in fact, they did attend any 
service— the Koman Catholic ceremonial and religion then still 
being national ? 

The seventh violation of their oath was, " to begin a series of 
acts for the total subversion of all that remained of the Catholic 
religion in England, and for the effecting of all that Old Harry had 
left uneffected in the way of plunder." How, again, was this any 
violation of any oath? The executors were "to administer the 
affairs of the kingdom as they should judge fit." One would 
suppose that to carry out all that Henry VIII. had left unfinished 
in the way of ecclesiastical plunder (as Mr. Cobbett calls it), would 
be in strict accordance with his wishes — " the cream had been taken 
off, but there remained the skimmed milk of church altars, chantries 
and guilds." a " There was plunder remaining, and to get at this 
plunder the Catholic religion must be wholly put down." b The 
Catholic religion ! — We call it Popery ! 

" Next came a law to allow the clergy to have wives ; and then, 
when all things had been prepared, came the Book of Common 
Prayer and the Administration of the Sacraments." c These are 
grievous sins in the eyes of Protestant William Cobbett ! 

" Every church altar had more or less of gold and silver. A 
part consisted of images, a part of censers, candlesticks, and other 
things used in the celebration of the mass," d and the like. Well, 
what then! If all the superstitious practices of the Church of 
Eome were to be abolished, and if the religion of that Church was 
to be treated as false and idolatrous (as it was), and if the laity were 
thenceforward to be freed from the tyrannical rule of priests, it was 
unavoidable that all instruments of superstition and idolatry, and 
all monastic institutions (the fertile source of vice and profligacy), 
should be removed, and that the clergy should be allowed to 
marry. 

a 196. M97. c 198. 207. 



140 

But horrible were the results of Protestantism ! 

"The consequences [i. e. of the Reformation] to the morals of 
the people were such as were naturally to be expected. All 
historians agree that vice of all sorts, and crimes of every kind, 
were never so great and so numerous before." When any person 
attempts to prove the truth of this wild and general proposition — 
conveniently supported by a reference to "all historians" — it 
will be time enough to deal with it* 

And now for another specimen of veracity. " To reconcile the 
people to these innovations, the plunderers had a Bible contrived 
for the purpose, which Bible was a perversion of the original text 
wherever it was found to be necessary. Of all the acts of this hypo- 
critical and plundering reign, this was perhaps the basest." a The 
italics in this quotation are Mr. Cobbett's. Doubtless, no one 
ever accused him of being a classical scholar, or capable of forming 
any opinion upon such a subject ; but who, except Mr. Cobbett, 
would have ventured such an assertion as that the Reformers' 
Bible was " a perversion of the original text? " But it seems im- 
possible for him to be accurate, even in the smallest particular. 
The Bible he speaks of was translated in the reign of Henry VIII., 
by Tindall and Coverdale, not in the reign of Edward VI. Mr. 
Cobbett's accuracy is as much to be admired as his boldness. 

" The Protector Somerset did not forget himself," b says Mr. 
Cobbett ; and then he proceeds to state, in his own peculiar way, how 
the Protector built Somerset House, and in so doing, he adopts 
without hesitation all the accusations, however vague", of Somerset's 
personal enemies ; amongst which was one "that he was raising a 
much larger and more stately palace than the King's, and had 
pulled down several churches for the sake of the materials, and 
alienated Church lands to bear the charge." But suppose it be 
true that, for the purpose of building Somerset House, he pulled 
down the houses of three bishops, and used the stone and other 
materials of some church or churches, how is it possible at this 
distance of time to know upon what terms he obtained the bishops* 
houses ? They may have been, and probably were, sold to him by 
their owners at their fair value, and we have seen enough of 
pulling clown churches, even in our own day, to be aware that 
Somerset might very innocently have purchased, or otherwise 
«208. »\209. 



141 

obtained, the stone, lead, and other materials of churches de- 
molished for improvements, or so called improvements. But let it 
be assumed that Somerset acted avariciously, lawlessly, and 
tyrannically ; what then ? Is it thereby proved that the Reformation 
was wrong, ought never to have taken place, and ought now to 
be discarded? — for that is in effect Mr. Cobbett's inference. 
Pray, of what material was St. Peter's at Rome built? It was 
built by moneys extracted from the people principally by the 
fraudulent and wicked sale of indulgences amassed by the Pedlar 
General of the Pope, the impostor Tetzel ! 

It is somewhat singular, however, that the jDeople, who, as Rapin 
observes, " were seldom out in their judgment about great men," 
were strongly attached to Somerset ; and so generally persuaded 
of his innocence that, when he was executed, many dipped their 
handkerchiefs in his blood, looking upon him as a sort of martyr . a 

But perhaps the greatest of all Mr. Cobbett's absurdities is, to 
attribute " the impoverishment and degradation amongst the 
people at large," and il the general discontent which in some cases 
broke out into open insurrection," b to the Reformation in this 
reign, and, amongst other causes, to the promulgation of the Book 
of Common Prayer . c 

Now, there were many causes (not connected with religion) for 
these insurrections. Disbanded monks and friars distributed through 
the kingdom were inciting the people to discontent. They were idle 
and dissolute men, who had been made so by the vicious system of 
support from the dissolved monasteries. The opponents of the Re- 
formation were working up, by all possible means, the passions of 
the Romanists — tillage land was changed into pasture, for the 
purpose of producing wool, which was then in great demand at 
home and abroad, and whole estates were converted into inclosures 
— tenants in great numbers were expelled from their habitations — 
the poor were deprived of their rights of common, on which they 
formerly fed their small stock of cattle — and there was want of 
employment for the labouring classes ; all these, and other causes, 
combined to produce disturbance. 

What the people most felt was, the practice of inclosing land for 
pasturage, which necessarily destroyed their employment as agri- 
culturists, from which their support had been previously derived. 
» Vol. viii, p. 97. London, 1721. b 210. c 212. 



142 

But this was a grievance before the reign of Edward VI. Sir 
Thomas More, in his Utopia, observes, that a sheep in England 
has become a more ravenous animal than a lion or wolf, and 
devoured whole villages, cities, and provinces. Moreover, it will 
be found from real history that the complaints of the commonalty 
at this time, were not made against Cranmer and the Reformers 
or the Prayer Book, but against the nobility and gentry on account 
of these very inclosures ; and not until after the suppression of 
insurrection in several counties were the priests able to give the 
discontent a direction towards religion. Moreover, the Protector 
himself befriended, to a certain extent, the people during these in- 
surrections, and published his proclamation against the principal 
evil of which they complained — a tolerably clear proof that 
hostility to the Reformation was not the origin of these troubles. 

Mr. Cobbett says : a " Somerset, who had brought his own brother 
to the block in 1549, chiefly because he had opposed himself to his 
usurpations (though both were plunderers), was not long after the 
commission of the above cruelties on the people [t. e. the punish- 
ment of these insurrections] destined to come to that block 
himself." Well, if Somerset really brought his brother to the 
block, his own death by the same mode seems an instance of 
retributive justice. But is it fair to say in this unexplained 
manner, that he did " bring his brother to the block ?" 

" Amongst all those that envied the Protector," says Rapin, b 
"there was not one more eager against him than the Admiral 
Thomas Seymour, his brother. He was a hot, proud, and haughty 
man." Whilst the Protector was in Scotland carrying on war, c 
the Admiral was caballing against him in England, and had suc- 
ceeded so far, that the Protector was obliged to return hastily from 
Scotland, leaving his successes there incomplete. The Admiral, 
(who had married Catherine Parr, widow of Henry VIII., without 
the knowledge of the Protector,) continued his schemes against his 
brother, by insinuating himself into the young King's favour and 
forming a party amongst the nobility. With the people he had no 
chance. After the return of the Protector from Scotland, the 
Admiral continued his project of supplanting his brother. Having 
gained to his side some of the Privy Councillors and nobility, and 
many members of Parliament, he persuaded the young King that the 
* 214. *> Vol. viii, p. 34. London, 1721. <- Ibid. p. 27. 



143 

two offices of Protector of the Realm and governor of his person 
gave Somerset too much power, and obtained from him a written 
message to the House of Commons, requesting them to make the 
Admiral the governor of his person. But the Council of the 
Kingdom, having been informed of the Admiral's proceedings, 
sent some Lords to him, to persuade him to proceed no further ; 
he replied that " if he were crossed in his attempt, he would make 
that the blackest Parliament that ever was in England." a Where- 
upon he was summoned to appear before the Council, but refused 
to obey. He was next warned by the Council that he would be 
deprived of all his offices, sent to the Tower, and prosecuted under 
the Act of Parliament which made it high treason to disturb the 
Government. He then submitted to the Council, and was recon- 
ciled to his brother, " who," says Rapin, " desired nothing else but 
to reclaim him by fair means." 

Nevertheless, the Admiral continued his intrigues until the 
Protector was compelled to consider him his most dangerous 
enemy. 

At length the Admiral formed the design to carry away the 
King to his own house, to displace the Protector, and seize the 
Government, for which purposes he enlisted two thousand men, 
according to Rapin — ten thousand, according to Burnet. The 
Protector, having learned these proceedings, still exercised the 
greatest forbearance towards his brother. At length the Council, 
being informed that the Admiral was contriving something 
against the Government, signed a warrant for his committal to 
the Tower. Commissioners were then appointed to take the 
evidence of witnesses ; these Commissioners reported to the Council 
that the Admiral was accused of having formed a conspiracy 
against the Government, of having committed many misde- 
meanors in the Admiralty department, of having protected 
pirates and shared their booty, and of refusing to do justice to 
private persons, or even to foreign princes who complained of 
these piratical outrages, whereby the King was in danger of a 
war. The Protector, with the view of saving him, endeavoured 
once more to persuade him to resign his office and retire from 
Court. But the Admiral obstinately refused to comply with this 
advice. Hereupon his accusation was drawn up by the Council in 
a Burnet, vol. ii, p. 88. fares' edition, 1830. 



144 

the form of thirty-three articles. Some of the Council attended 
upon him to examine him ; and, on the next day, the Privy Council 
went to him in a body to the Tower ; but, on both occasions, he 
refused to answer any of the charges, and demanded an open 
trial. Afterwards the case was brought before Parliament by 
Bill of Attainder, and some of the members were sent to take 
his answers. He gave answers to the first three charges, and 
then refused to say more. This conduct being reported, the Bill 
of Attainder passed through the House of Lords ; but it was 
much opposed and debated in the House of Commons. Ultimately 
it passed through the House of Commons, four hundred members 
being present, and not more than twelve voting against it. 

It is, therefore, unfair in the highest degree to state the case in 
the bold terms in which Mr. Cobbett states it, that Somerset 
" brought his brother to the block." But, suppose, if you please, 
that both the brothers were bad, ambitious, and heartless men, how 
does that fact prove that the Reformation was unjustifiable ? 

I have no desire to represent Somerset any better than he was. 
But when a man like Mr. Cobbett heaps unmeasured abuse on 
every one who favoured a Reformation, it is not out of the scope of 
this reply to present to the reader the estimate of his character as 
drawn by Bishop Burnet : — 

" Thus fell the Duke of Somerset, a person of great virtues, 
eminent for piety, humble and affable in his greatness, sincere and 
candid in all his transactions ; he was always careful of the poor 
and the oppressed ; and, in a word, had as many virtues and as 
few faults as most great men, especially when they were so 
unexpectedly advanced, had ever had. It was generally believed 
that all this pretended conspiracy upon which he was condemned 
was only a forgery, for both Palmer and Crane, the chief witnesses, 
were soon after discharged, as were also Bartuile and Hamond, 
with all the rest that had been made prisoners on the pretence of 
this plot. And the Duke of Northumberland continued after that 
in so close a friendship with Palmer, that it was generally believed 
he had been corrupted to betray him;" and after further remarks 
on this head he adds : — " The people were generally much affected 
with this execution ; and many threw handkerchiefs into the Duke 
of Somerset's blood to preserve it in remembrance of him. One 
lady that met the Duke of Northumberland when he was led 



145 

through the city in Queen Mary's reign, shaking one of these 
bloody handkerchiefs, said, ' Behold the blood of that worthy man, 
that good uncle of that excellent King, which was shed by thy 
malicious practice, doth now begin apparently to revenge itself on 
thee.' Sure it is, that Northumberland, as haying maliciously 
contrived this, was ever after hated by the people." a 

This is the Somerset whom Cobbett, following all Jesuit writers, 
abuses in his vulgar vituperative style, simply because he was more 
of a Reformer than a Papist, but for whom he has not one single 
word of praise or compassion ! 

Speaking of the execution of Somerset after the execution of his 
brother, Mr. Cobbett says — " As the King, the Protestant Saint 
Edward, had signed the death warrant of one uncle at the instigation 
of another uncle, he now signed the death warrant of that other, the 
saint himself heing even now under fifteen years of age." b The words 
11 being even now under fifteen years of age " do, without further 
proof, shew that Edward could never have signed either of these 
death warrants — he was still under age — and the government of the 
country was in the hands of the Council appointed by Henry VIII. 
But I avail myself of this opportunity of correcting a vulgar error, 
that the Sovereign signs death warrants. Such signature never 
was required; and, as far as I can discover, never was given. 
There was no such signature for the burning of Joan Bocher, the 
Maid of Kent, and the whole story of Edward's reluctance and 
Cranmer's persuasion may be vastly pretty and sensational, but, 
although told by respectable writers, is a mere myth. Even Queen 
Elizabeth did not sign the death warrant of Mary, Queen of Scots 
as may be seen by consulting the trial of Davidson, as recorded in 
the State Trials. 

In our own memory there was the practice of the Recorder of 
London reporting to the King the capital cases in London; but 
this was for the purpose of ascertaining which were proper cases 
for mercy, not for the purpose of obtaining the King's signature 
for execution. The Recorder's Report is now discontinued, pursuant 
to an Act of Parliament passed at the commencement of our 
Queen's reign. With reference to Joan Bocher, or Joan of Kent, 
the entry in the King's journal was as follows : — " Joan Bocher, 

a Burnet's " History of the Reformation," vol. ii, p. 296. Nares' edit 1830 
b 214. 



146 

otherways called Joan of Kent, was burnt for holding that Christ 
was not incarnate of the Virgin Mary ; being condemned the year 
before, but kept in hope of conversion ; and the 30th of April the 
Bishop of London and the Bishop of Ely went to persuade her, but 
she withstood them, and reviled the preacher that preached at her 
death." a From this extract it has been justly argued that if the 
King had been importuned, as alleged, by Cranmer, the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, to sign the warrant for committing Joan to the 
flames, something further would have appeared. The following is 
the entry in the Privy Council Book, 27th April 1550: — "A 
warrant to the L. Chancellor to make out a writt to the Shireff of 
London for the execution of Johan of Kent, condemned to be 
burned for certein detestable opinions of heresie." The persons 
stated to be present at the Council on that day were, " The Lord 
Chauncellor, the L. High Threasurer, the L. Great Chamberlaine, 
the L. Chamberlaine, the L. Pagett, the Bishopp of Ely, the 
Threasurer, Mr. Comptroller, Master of the Horse, Mr. Vice- 
Chamberlaine, Sir Rauf Sadler, Sir Edward Northe." b 

Neither the King nor Cranmer was present. Joan was executed 
under a writ de liceretico camburendo (under an unrepealed Popish Act 
of Parliament), addressed to the Sheriff of London, on the authority 
of a warrant signed by the Council issued out of the High Court 
of Chancery. I do not pretend to palliate or excuse the act. It 
cannot be justified, but what I desire to establish is, that this 
wretched piece of persecution was neither the act of the King nor 
of Cranmer. It was, moreover, according to law and public sentiment. 

Mr. Bruce, in his biography of Roger Hutchinson, cited above, b 
thus concludes his remarks : — " It would have been contrary to 
constitutional custom for the King to have signed any such docu- 
ment ; it is quite clear from the entry quoted that, in point of fact, 
he did not sign it ; and the narrative which the worthy martyr- 
ologist was misled into inserting, and Cranmer's difficulty to cause 
the King to ' put to his hand,' and the tears by which subsequent 
writers have declared that his submission to the stern pleading of 
his spiritual father were accompanied, all vanish." 

a Soame's "History of England," vol. iii, p. 544. London, 1826. Bidley 
was then Bishop of London, and Goodrich, the Lord Chancellor, was Bishop 
of Ely. Cranmer was not present. 

»< See Bruce's " Biography of Roger Hutchinson," prefixed to his works. 
Parker Society's edition, Cambridge, 1842. 



147 

"I am aware of what Foxe and Burnet say on this subject, but 
documentary evidence has subsequently thrown more light on the 
.subject; and it is .a significant fact, that the Romish libellers of 
Cranmer, FoxeV contemporaries, are wholly silent on this matter. 
It is somewhat startling to find even in the present day assertions 
advanced which do not appear to have any shadow of truth to 
support them. The Saturday Review, in a late article on this 
subject," goes so far as to affirm that Cranmer, in his importunity 
for blood, used his hand " to guide poor Edward's shrinking 
fingers " to sign the death warrant of Joan Bocher. The Reviewer 
possibly might have been ignorant of the fact that this little 
scandal, which even Mr. Cobbett did not dare to utter, had been 
so completely set at rest by Mr. Bruce. 

Our fair-spoken historian says b : — " "Warwick [afterwards Duke 
of Northumberland] was now become Protector. . . . This 
was, if possible, a more zealous Protestant than the last Protector; 
that is to say, still more profligate, rapacious, and cruel.'''' It is not 
true that Northumberland was a Protestant ; he was as bigoted and 
wicked a Papist as ever disgraced this country ; his own intrigues and 
treasons brought him to the scaffold, and were the cause of suffering 
to many innocent persons, amongst whom were Lady Jane Grey and 
his own son, Lord Dudley. Such, according to Mr. Cobbett, are the 
necessary characteristics of genuine Protestantism, and he concludes 
by saying — " This Church of England, as by law and German 
troops established, lecame the scorn, not only of the people of England, 
hut of all the nations of Europe." Since Mr. Cobbett cites no 
authority for this extraordinary proposition, we may leave it as we 
found it ; it is simply untrue. Mr. Cobbett relates, in his peculiar 
way, the proceedings of Northumberland u for getting the crown 
into his own family," " a project," he adds, " quite worthy of a hero 
of the Reformation." He further tells us that the settlement of the 
crown by Edward's will met with great difficulty when the matter 
t^ame before the lawyers . d The facts seem to be, that Northumberland 
was an ambitious man ; that the young King was anxious that the 
work of the Reformation should not be impeded by the accession 
of his sister Mary ; that the argument for excluding Mary and 
Elizabeth, on the ground of their illegitimacy, operated upon him ; 

a See No. 622, vol. xxiv, p. 403, 28th Sept., 1867. 
* 215. « 216, 217. «J 217. 

L 2 



148 

and that the King's settlement of the crown was contrived and 
carried out by Northumberland. No doubt, as Mr. Cobbett says, 
the lawyers made a difficulty. Three of the Judges were summoned, 
and desired to draw up an assignment of the crown to Lady Jane 
Grey ; they requested time to consider, and then said that they 
could not prepare such a document without danger of high treason. 
Ultimately, however, the settlement of the crown was drawn up, 
and signed by the King, by all the Judges (except Hales), and by 
all the Privy Councillors. There is some doubt whether Cranmer 
signed merely as a witness to the King's signature or as a Privy 
Councillor. Now, suppose all this to have been very wrong — although 
there may be great diversity of opinion upon that point — how does 
it prove that the Eeformation itself was an injury to this country ? 
— for that, in every instance of abuse of persons, is the real argument 
and intended conclusion of Mr. Cobbett. 

We are then informed a that " Northumberland, seeing the death 
of the young saint approaching, had, in conjunction with Cranmer 
and the rest of his Council, ordered the two Princesses to come near to 
London, under pretence that they might be at hand to comfort 
their brother, but with the real design of putting them into prison 
the moment the breath should be out of his body." Now Rapin 
tells the story in such a way as to throw the blame of this 
manoeuvre upon Northumberland, but it would not suit Mr. 
Cobbett's history to omit a slur upon Cranmer. Rapin says, 
" Some days before his [the King's] death, the Duke of North- 
umberland got the Council to write to the Princesses Mary and 
Elizabeth, desiring them to come and keep him company in his 
sickness. His aim was to have them in his power, that they might 
not obstruct the promotion of his daughter-in-law Jane Grey. 
The two Princesses, not imagining the King was so near death, 
were coming to him, but hearing he was in his last agonies they 
turned back, and the DuTce was disappointed of his aim." b 

After Edward's death, " the nobility and gentry," says Mr. 
Cobbett, " instantly nocked to the standard of Mary; and the 
people, even in London, who were most infected with the pestiferous 
principles of the foreign miscreants that had been brought from the 
Continent to teach them the new religion, had native honesty 
enough left to make them disapprove of this last and most daring 
a 219. b Vol. viii, £. 108. London, 1721. 



149 

of robberies." a Verily Mr. Cobbett has a power of vituperation 
peculiarly his own, for he can say nothing without superlative abuse, 
.being himself nothing more than a literary bully. However, the 
nobility and gentry did not so instantly flock to the standard of 
Mary, and the real cause of some of the Privy Councillors in 
London siding with Mary was their personal hatred of Northum- 
berland. The Earl of Arundel represented to them " that now or 
never was the time to shake off the tyranny of the Duke of North- 
umberland ; that they had sufficiently experienced how arrogant, 
unjust, cruel and treacherous to his friends he was, and if they 
were so unwise as to support Jane on the throne, they would only 
render more heavy the yoke which the Duke had laid on their 
necks ; that the only way was to declare for Mary, and when the 
people should see the Council take that course, the Duke of North- 
umberland would be forsaken by everybody." b 

Mr. Cobbett thus concludes his History of the Reformation during 
the reign of Edward VI: — " No reign, no age, no country ever 
witnessed rapacity, hypocrisy, meanness, basoness, perfidy, such as 
England witnessed in those who were the destroyers of the [Roman] 
Catholic and founders of the Protestant Church." c " Thus ended 
this reign of reformation, plunder, wretchedness and disgrace. 
. . . The nation became every day more and more despised 
abroad, and more and more distracted and miserable at home. 
. . . As this Church by law established advanced, all the re- 
mains of Christian charity vanished before it. England . . . 
became under a Protestant Church a scene of repulsive selfishness, 
of pack-horse toil, of pinching want, and of rapacity and plunder 
and tyranny, that made the very name of law and justice a 
mockery." d Assuredly we have read history to no purpose, 
having hitherto been under the delusion that Protestantism intro- 
duced into England order and quiet, liberty and prosperity at 
home, and respect and fear, influence and high prestige abroad ! 
However, it is never too late to learn ! — but we respectmlly 
decline to take our lesson from the pages of Mr. Cobbett's so- 
called " History of the Reformation." 

a 220. b Rapin, vol. viii, p. 128. London, 1721 t 

*221. d222. 



CHAPTER VI. 

MARY, 3 

The reign of Mary furnishes one of the blackest pages of English 
history. It is marked by a total disregard of national character 
and prosperity, either in our domestic interests or foreign relations, 
and presents us -with nothing but the distortions of bigotry and 
ravages of intolerance. It was a reign of terror, whose measures, 
with scarcely any exception, had their origin in persecution ; the 
disgrace, not only of government, but of human nature itself. No 
one, in recording the cruelties of Caligula, Nero, or Domitian, 
has had a more humiliating task to perform than the historian of 
this reign. The name of Mary has long passed from father to son 
as a proverb for what reflects the greatest disgrace on a woman 
and a queen ; and since the persecuting conduct of this princess 
contributed more to the stability of the Reformation than any other 
event, the attempt to turn the current of popular feeling in her 
favour, even at the present day, is too great a presumption on the 
ignorance, prejudice, and fickleness of the multitude. The English 
nation — the Protestant public — has always been decided in the 
detestation with which it has treated her memory ; and a brief 
survey of her conduct will be sufficient to show that this does not 
arise from any want of delicacy towards her as a woman, nor from 
any inattention to the embarrassments of her station, but is, in all 
its severity, the reprobation justly bestowed on an iniquitous system 
and malignant heart. 

In recording the reign of Mary, Mr. Cobbett speaks of her as 
" one of the most virtuous of human beings ; " and of her crimes, 
and consequent misfortunes, as rendered unavoidable by the conduct 
of her predecessors — declaring, in short, that in her excellent 
qualities, her exalted virtues, her piety, charity, generosity, sacred 
adherence to her faith and word, her gratitude, and those feelings 
of anxiety for the greatness and honour of England which 
hastened her to the grave, she was never equalled by any 

a I have availed myself of the chapter on Mary from Oxlad's " Protestant 
Vindicator," with some corrections and additions. 



151 

sovereign that ever sat on the English throne, Alfred alone 
excepted ! a It is plain to every one, that the reign of Mary takes 
its character from her zeal for the re- establishment of the Romish 
Church. This was the nucleus of her virtues — her pole-star over 
an ocean of crime and misery — the magnitude and sanctity of 
which made intervening distresses nothing, and took from wicked- 
ness its grossness. Never, surely, was there a more shameless 
illustration of the execrable maxim, that the end sanctifies the 
means, than in the slightest commendation bestowed upon this 
sanguinary reign. And what rendered the matter still more 
reprehensible in her was, that she made an open declaration to her 
Council, notwithstanding her known bias to the Romish cause, 
that she would put no restraints on any one's conscience, and 
would only use persuasion by truth, and by means of godly, virtuous, 
and learned prelates. She commenced by ordering poor Dodd to 
be placed in the pillory for three days, for having reminded her of 
her promise ; b and then by expelling from their livings and cures 
at least two-thirds of the clergy, and turning them adrift with 
their wives and families penniless. Mr. Cobbett is bitter against 
Henry VIII. for having ousted the monks from their homes ; 
Henry, however, granted them pensions, and scrupulously kept his 
promise. Cobbett has much to say on the hard fate of the monks, 
but has not one word of compassion for the victims of Mary. We 
know also, too well, how Mary kept faith with her people generally. 
Bonner and Gardiner were her ministers and advisers ; fire and 
faggot were her instruments. The liberty she granted was exem- 
plified by the proclamation she caused to be issued ordering all 
foreigners, not denizens or regular merchants, especially " all 
preachers, booksellers and printers," to quit the realm within 
twenty-four hours. 

The Duke of Northumberland's ambition having been disap- 
pointed in his attempt to elevate the amiable and unfortunate Jane 
Grey to the throne, Mary's accession was generally acknowledged. 
The manner in which the nation submitted to her sway has often 
been represented as evidence of a disposition in favour of the 
Romish Church ; but considering the strong prejudice which 
existed in favour of hereditary succession, and the fear with which 

»2o8. 

b Heylyn's " Ecclesia Itestaurata," p. 79, vol. ii. Cambridge, 1849. 



152 

the power of Northumberland was regarded, Mary possessed 
advantages which nothing hut a prophetic anticipation of her real 
character could have destroyed. She was the lawful heir, and a 
recognition of her power would prevent the turbulent ascendancy 
of the Dudleys and the disasters of a civil war. Supposing, 
therefore, that she was capable of being prompted by benevolence 
and bound by justice, the people, apart from religious considera- 
tions, had many reasons to acknowledge her. That her accession 
did not prove the hostility, or even indifference, of the people to 
the Reformation is shown by the system of compromise she felt 
herself under the necessity of adopting, and which she afterwards 
basely violated, in contempt of the obligations of her promise. 
To the people of Suffolk in particular, among whom she retired on 
the rising of Nor thumb erland, she pledged her word, as a condition 
of their support, that she would not change the laws of Edward. 
In the Council, also, she plainly declared that her resolution was 
to allow freedom of conscience in matters of religion ; but when, 
afterwards, the men of Suffolk reminded her of her promise to 
them, one of them, as already noted, was exposed for three days in 
the pillory on the charge of defaming her. And when, about the 
same time, Bonner's chaplain had been delivered by two Reformed 
preachers from the danger into which his calumnies on Edward 
had hurried him, these two men, on the charge of having an undue 
influence over the multitude, were imprisoned, one in his own house, 
and the other in the Tower ! But Mary's depravity as a queen was 
precocious. She no sooner found herself on the throne than she 
crushed with an iron hand the hopes she had invited. She pub- 
lished a treacherous proclamation, in which, recollecting her 
promise, she affirmed that, though she intended to persevere in the 
Roman Catholic religion herself, she would use no force with her 
subjects till public order should be taken by common consent! Among 
other things, sufficiently, intelligible as threats against the Re- 
formers, she prohibited preaching without her special license, which, 
of course, shut the Reformers out of the pulpit. She threw several 
members of Parliament into prison for their freedom of speech.* 

One of her next steps was to deprive five Reforming Bishops, 
and to re-establish Popish ones in their stead ; and though the 
bishopric of Durham had been dissolved by the authority of Parlia- 
* Count de Noaille's Despatches, vol, iv, p. 25. 



153 

ment, she chose to erect it anew, in favour of Tonstall. Arbitrary 
imprisonment followed deprivation. Judge Hales, one of the most 
strenuous defenders of the Queen's title, was confined, under treat- 
ment of the greatest severity, on account of charging the Justices 
of Kent to conform to the laws of Edward, which were then un- 
repealed. Cranmer, as might have been expected, when gratitude 
and justice were openly proscribed, soon felt the persecuting power 
of the Queen. Though he had done no more in supporting Henry's 
divorce from her mother than was chargeable on Gardiner, now 
raised to honour, and though he had stood between Mary and her 
father's anger when her life was threatened by that monarch, whose 
supremacy, she declined to acknowledged in his own kingdom, his 
fall was determined ; and for merely contradicting a calumny of 
Bonner, who affirmed that he had promised the Queen to conform, 
he was committed to the Tower, till some other excuse might be 
invented for his death. Mr. Cobbett has a special aversion to 
Elizabeth for her alleged hanging, drawing, and quartering. Mary 
practised these on several. Stowe specially names Sketchley, Brad- 
ford, and Proctor. a The abolished rites of the Romish Church were 
openly revived, and imprisonment and death decreed to him who 
dared to whisper the truth of their unlawfulness ; added to which 
the Queen was at this time secretly negotiating with the Pope and 
Emperor on subjects which she feared to disclose to the nation, and 
which afterwards involved the country in misfortune and disgrace. 
"With these proofs of intolerance, illegality, and faithlessness, the 
Reformers could not longer doubt the nature of their impending fate. 
Foreigners, some of the most useful artisans the kingdom contained, 
returned home, accompanied by as many native Protestants as 
possible. Thus far Mary proceeded in changing the aspect of the 
nation, without even asking the sanction of Parliament, in contempt 
both of the law and her own promise by which she was bound. 
Cobbett speaks of the just and beneficent acts by which she began 
her reign. How far she deserves the praise of lightening the 
burdens of her people we may presently learn from the violence of 
her extortions, and also the deliberate violation of her promises not 
to impose her faith on the people, otherwise than through godly, 
learned, and virtuous preachers, and without violence. She indeed 
remitted the last subsidy granted to Edward, but was never 
a Stowe's Annals, p. 631. London, 1615. 



154 

remarkable for modesty in requiring aid for herself. "When the 
Parliament met, mass, though abolished by law, was performed 
with a parade the most insulting to the nation. And when Taylor, 
Bishop of Lincoln, refused to join in the unlawful service, he was 
violently thrust out of the House. Mr. Cobbett affects surprise 
and indignation at the compliance of Parliament with the wishes of 
Mary, compared with the conduct of the former reigns. " And 
now," he says, " we are about to witness a scene which, were not 
its existence so well attested, must pass for the wildest of romance. 
What ? That Parliament, who had declared Cranmer's divorce of 
Catherine to be lawful, and who had enacted that Mary was a 
bastard, acknowledged that same Mary to be the lawful heir to the 
throne ! That Parliament which had abolished the Catholic wor- 
ship and created the Protestant worship, on the ground that the 
former was idolatrous and damnable and the latter agreeable to the 
will of God, abolish the latter and restore the former ! What ? 
Do these things ? And that, too, without any force, without being 
compelled to do them ? No, not exactly so ; for it had the people 
to fear." a The history of the English Senate during this period 
is no very honourable record. Cobbett points with exultation at 
the fact that the English Parliament, on bended knees, received the 
absolution of the Pope's representative for their past defection, and 
that they thereupon acknowledged again his supremacy. If he really 
considered this a just and meritorious act on the part of the nation, 
how inconsistent was his whole life and conduct in never once fol- 
lowing this example ! He remained to his dying day, by profession, 
a member of the Church of England, a standing protest against any 
such usurpation. But Mr. Cobbett withheld the terms imposed by 
the Pope on the Queen and her ministers, and by the Parliament, 
in turn, on the Pope. Cardinal Pole, though conciliation was his 
avowed object, did not forbear hinting at the extermination of 
heretics, when addressing the English Parliament with a view of 
persuading them to return to the Eomish faith. 5 It was, in fact, 
on this condition, of exterminating heretics, that the Pope consented 
to allow Mary to reconcile herself and her people to Eome — a con- 
dition which Mary dutifully performed, as we learn from a letter 

a 226. 

b See Sharon Turner's " Modern History of England " vol. iii, p. 450.. 
London, 1835. 



155 

which the French Ambassador in England, a zealous Papist, wrote 
to his Court, February 4th, 1555, on the burning of the first 
sufferer, Rogers — " This day was performed the confirmation of the 
alliance between the Pope and the kingdom, and a public and 
solemn sacrifice of a preaching Doctor named Rogers, who has been 
burnt alive for being a Lutheran."* The country, Mr. Cobbett 
tells us, by the influences of this same Parliament, went back to the 
" old religion," and "once more became Catholic." The Reforma- 
tion in religion had taken place in the previous reign ; but Cobbett's 
great charge against Edward is not so much that he caused that 
Reformation, but that he and his "myrmidons" laid their sacri- 
legious hands on and plundered the Church property. Did, 
however, this submissive Parliament, in restoring the " ancient 
faith," return to the rightful owners the "plunder?" No! The 
Act of Parliament which brought the country back to Popery, or, as 
Mr. Cobbett has it, " once more a Catholic country — restored to the 
fold of Christ, " b confirmed the titles of the " plunderers " in their 
alleged ill-gotten wealth, and declared that if any one should disturb 
or molest them therein he should be deemed guilty of praemunire, and 
be punished accordingly ; and the Pope's Legate absolved them all 
from the consequences of their sacrilegious acts. c These are the 
men of whom Mr. Cobbett boasts that they had made England 
again "Catholic;" these are the "hypocrites" and "villains," 
"hellish ruffians," "robbers," "perjurers," &c, &c, but they 
were all Papists nevertheless. If Romanists possessed a particle 
of common sense ; if they had any respect for themselves or their 
religion, they would reject with scorn the aid of such an advocate, 
who, instead of serving their cause, was in fact making both himself 
and them the derision of all honest and truth-loving men. What 
could be a greater condemnation of the Pope and Popery, than the 
admission of Mr. Cobbett (while artfully withholding the Pope's par- 
ticipation in the transaction) that this act was the very worst trans- 
action of Mary's whole reign, the fires of Smithfield not excepted. d 
But why the suppleness of the Parliament, in re-establishing the 
Roman Catholic religion, should be made to reflect discredit on the 
Reformed establishment is difficult of solution. If composed of 

a Sharon Turner's "Modern History of England," vol. iii. p. 466. b 231, 
c See the reference given in the chapter on the Dissolution of Monasteries, 
ante p. 123. <» 233. 



156 

men who were without principle, they disgraced Popery. If they 
desisted from opposition, believing it to he fruitless, they prove 
the enormity of the system to which they conformed, as a contempt 
of law and justice ; and the flagrancy of its advocates as the most 
shameless of tyrants. But they had, we are told, the people to 
fear. This, however, is not only gratuitous, it is contradictory to 
fact. For, if they had merely accommodated themselves to national 
feeling, why resort to penal statutes, to the dungeon and the 
stake? The truth is, the Reformation, as the religion of the 
State, ebbed and flowed with the prejudices of princes and the 
vacillations of the nobles and clergy ; while, as an indepen- 
dent system of faith and practice among the people, it constantly 
spread. The enactments of Parliament were no more an index to 
the sentiments of the nation than infallible decisions on points of 
religious faith. During Henry's reign the Parliament was no 
more Protestant than the King. During the reign of Edward 
it became more decided. But when Mary summoned it, measures 
had previously been laid for its degradation, and it met with the 
mortifying assurance, that it was at the peril of any of its mem- 
bers to oppose her infuriated zeal. If we think for a moment 
of the circumstances under which elections to the Parliament took 
place, the certainty of a full and excessive employment of the 
Crown influence, and the backwardness of a Reformer to take 
^ seat in a House where he could not give a conscientious vote but 
^t the risk of his life, we may safely conclude that Mary had 
secured a most obsequious and unprincipled House of Commons. 
When we look also at the House of Peers, and recollect the 
changes which had been made with a view to its meeting, and how 
its members were interested in making common cause with the 
Court, we can expect little from this branch of the legislature. 

It was not the Parliament of Henry, or of Edward, that abolished 
the Reformation ; but one packed for the purpose by the artifice 
of Mary and her clerical guides, Protestantism is no way affected 
by the baseness of the Parliament, for its baseness exposes the 
enormity of the influence in which it took its rise. It was under 
a compelling power, whose exercise was relentless and bloody ; but 
at the same time it will be seen that the Parliament of this reign 
embraced many opportunities afforded them to oppose the designs 
of the Queen. 



157 

The session was distinguished by an establishment of the Queen's 
title ; by several attainders for high treason ; by authorising the 
restoration of Popish services ; and especially by a repeal of the 
statutes of Edward regarding religion ; but, with the direct 
sanction of the Pope, she confirmed the title of the " sacrilegious 
robbers," in their alleged ill-gotten gains of ecclesiastical property. 

Mary's projected marriage with Philip, the son of the Emperor 
Charles V., engaged the attention and alarmed the fears of the 
Commons ; when venturing to dissuade her from marriage with a 
foreigner, she hastily dissolved them. There is no need to dwell at 
length on the policy of this marriage, though it should be stated 
that its chief support was all along derived from Roman Catholic 
infatuation. What advantage could possibly be obtained for 
England by making her in any degree appendant to the overgrown 
power of the Emperor ? If a dread of the union of France with 
Scotland was worth consideration, was it honourable to think of 
surrendering the nation to Germany or Spain ? " Such," says Mr. 
Cobbett, "was the policy which dictated the celebrated match;" 
the wisdom of which policy was soon obvious in the effects of a war 
With France. It is amusing to observe how Mr. Cobbett is per- 
plexed by ascribing to Mary a care for the glory of her people in 
this marriage, while he is obliged to admit that the same motive 
influenced the Parliament in opposing it : — " What queen, what 
sovereign, ever took more care of the glory of a people ? Yet the 
fact appears to be that there was some jealousy in the nation at 
large as to this foreign connexion ; and I am not one of those who 
are disposed to censure this jealousy." Let the reader, however, 
observe that, in the former paragraph, the nation on this account 
is called very " unreasonable and ungrateful." " But can I," he 
adds, " have the conscience to commend, or even to abstain from 
censuring, this jealousy in our Catholic forefathers without feeling, 
as a Protestant, my cheeks burn with shame at what has taken 
place in Protestant times, and even in my own time." a All these 
bursts of pained and indignant virtue proceed upon a very absurd 
assumption. The rash or dishonest writer speaks of this jealousy 
as " Catholic," when the fact is, that the marriage with Philip was 
the object of intense desire with our [Roman] " Catholic " fore- 
fathers, and the jealousy in question arose from the dread of Papal 

a 243. 



158 

ascendancy. Suppose we have of later years been accustomed to 
some incorrect views of foreign relationship, just in proportion as 
we were censurable in the days of Mr. Cobbett, and the feeling of 
opposition to Mary's marriage is admitted to have been valuable, 
her precipitancy and that of Gardiner and others in the case 
remains the subject of reproach and condemnation. Mr. Cobbett 
finds this jealousy, which chiefly existed among the friends of the 
Reformation, to be too troublesome for his management ; even he 
knows not how to condemn it, nor to free the Queen from the 
blame it implies ; so that after falsely ascribing it to the " Catholics " 
themselves, he falls foully on the Protestants of the present day, 
and reproaches them for its want. This is the merest artifice. 
" Does not my cheek," he says, " burn with shame when I think that 
William III. was a foreigner, and that we are now supporting the 
Prince of Saxe-Coburg, a foreigner also ?" If, we reply, there is 
reason for shame on this account, he ought certainly to be ashamed 
of advocating the cause of Mary and that of the Pope. " The 
Pope," he says, " was a foreigner, exercising spiritual power in 
England, and this the hypocrites [«. e. the Reformers] pretended 
was a degradation to the King and country." a But Mr. Cobbett, 
it appears, can " bid the blush," or " blush only on one side," while 
he was doubtless laughing in his sleeve at his own impudence. 
Convenient, if not amiable, sensibility ! But he was paid for it, no 
doubt. The adjustment of the marriage preliminaries was marked 
by some appearance of deference to the wishes of the nation. 
Though it was unjustly resolved that, whatever opposition existed, 
the marriage should take place, it was thought advisable to render 
it as acceptable as possible. The extremely compliant terms on 
which the Emperor acceded naturally awakened suspicion, especially 
when it was known that he had sent to Gardiner twelve hundred 
thousand crowns, equal to four hundred thousand pounds, for his 
assistance in removing scruples, and made no secret of having 
bound Philip to repay him on attaining to the throne of England. 
The duplicity of Charles was well known, and the character of Mary 
was no longer a secret. The people, therefore, had little reason for 
confidence in a treaty which ambition and bigotry would be tempted 
to violate. If Mary and her counsellors had so far forgotten the 
honour of the Crown and the welfare of her people as to enter- 

a 89. 



159 

tain the project, little credit was due to the sincerity of her pro- 
fessions or the solidity of any engagements by which she sought 
to recommend it. She regarded it as an accession of power in her 
opposition to the Reformation ; and, viewed in this light, it justly 
became an object of dread, to which nothing ought to have recon- 
ciled the people. The insurrection which took place, chiefly under 
the direction of Sir Thomas Wyat, had for its avowed object the 
prevention of the Queen's marriage, without the mention of contro- 
verted points in religion. Yet Mr. Cobbett, ascribing all honorable 
jealousy on this head to the Romanists, mentions the rebellion in 
another connection, and refers it to the zeal of the Reformed 
Preachers in protesting against the government of a woman ! 
Mary's lenity also is made, in this connection, the subject of 
laudation, because she spared the unfortunate Lady Jane Grey 
at a time when it would have been dangerous to destroy her, though 
she seized this occasion to bring her, her husband, and her father to 
the block. The execution of the Queen of Scots is brought in judg- 
ment against Elizabeth as a cruel murder, but not one word of 
condemnation is uttered against Mary for the execution of the 
gentle Lady Jane and her youthful husband Lord Dudley. In 
addition to this, this mild and compassionate Sovereign ordered the 
execution of about sixty persons, and near four hundred are said to 
have suffered on account of an insurrection in which no blood had 
been shed ; and lastly, an attempt was made to involve the Princess 
Elizabeth in the guilt of rebellion. The manner in which Mr. 
Cobbett has separated these things, attributing to the Romanists 
what proves the temper of the nation to have been in favour of 
the Reformation, and then exhibiting the Queen as a pattern of 
excellence, under circumstances the real nature of which shows her 
falsehood and cruelty, is another evidence of his artifice as an 
historian. " In my relation," he afterwards says, " I have not 
adhered to the exact chronological order, which would have too 
much broken my matter into detached parcels." a Indeed ! Is 
chronological order of no importance in a history which professes 
to be a development of passions and principles ? Will an obser- 
vance of order break the matter of history into " detached parcels 1 " 
The truth is, this man has broken his subject into fragments, and 
shifting them from place to place, allows us to see no more than 

a 245. 



160 

may answer his party design, and places these in such positions that 
they deceive the eye. His neglect of order is a gross violation of 
truth. 

The domestic conduct of Mary and Philip is scarcely the proper 
object of remark in this place; we may, however, be excused 
mentioning that it betrayed the greatest weakness on her part. 
Infatuated with a husband who despised her, her jealousy was 
perpetually alarmed, leading her into the most tormenting fondness 
towards him and injustice towards others. His demands on her 
resources were great; and the only way in which she found it 
possible to gratify him for a moment was to study his rapacity — 
multiplying the most oppressive exactions from her subjects. She 
first levied a loan of sixty thousand pounds upon a thousand persons, 
and then another loan on all who possessed twenty pounds a year. 
At another time she exacted sixty thousand marks from seven 
thousand yeomen, and thirty-six thousand pounds from the mer- 
chants ; which, according to the then value of money, should be 
multiplied by at least ten to give us an idea of the amounts raised. 
Commerce was interrupted to gratify her exorbitance. Hence she 
placed certain prohibitions on the exportation of cloth, and when 
the English Company at Antwerp refused her a loan of forty 
thousand pounds, she repressed her anger till they had shipped at 
her own ports large quantities of cloth, when she laid an embargo 
on their ships, and obliged them to grant the forty thousand pounds 
first demanded, to engage to pay twenty thousand more at a given 
period, and submit to an imposition of twenty shillings on each piece. 
The following case is, if possible, still more wicked : — Understanding 
that the Italian merchants had shipped forty thousand pieces of 
cloth for the Levant, she prohibited their exportation by closing a 
bargain with interested adventurers, from whom she received fifty 
thousand pounds in addition to unusual impositions. So low at the 
same time had her credit sunk that, when she offered the city of 
Antwerp fourteen per cent, for thirty thousand pounds, it was 
refused, till she compelled the City of London to suretyship. 
Hume was supported by facts when he said that, the chief part of 
government to which she attended was the extortion of money from 
her people in order to satisfy the demands of her husband. If 
anything divided her heart with zeal for the Romish Church, it 
was her anxiety to purchase his attentions. 



161 

When involved in a war with France she again and again levied 
loans on the oppressed; and, after equipping a fleet, which she 
knew not how to victual, she seized all the corn she could find in 
Norfolk and Suffolk, without any compensation to the owners. 

The war with France was as unnecessary as it proved inglorious. 
Though in the articles of Mary's marriage it was stipulated that 
the alliance between England and France should be preserved, not- 
withstanding war between France and Spain, Philip no sooner found 
himself a monarch in England, engaged in hostilities with France, 
than he insisted on English aid ; and coming to London threatened 
the Queen never more to set foot in England if he were disappointed 
in this request. This was enough. With an exhausted revenue 
and a divided Council, she levied an army for his support ; but so 
feebly was her share in the war maintained, and so jealous had her 
Koman Catholic counsellors become of her husband's designs, 
that, notwithstanding Philip's warning of the danger of Calais, this 
boasted possession of the English on the Gallic shore, which King 
Edward III. conquered from France in 1347, fell into the hands 
of the Duke de Guise in 1557-8. Mr. Cobbett has the effrontery 
to lay the loss of Calais at the door of Elizabeth, because she 
would not embroil the nation in a sanguinary and expensive war to 
regain the lost possession. This event inflamed the discontent of 
the people, added to Mary's own well merited shame, and completed 
the degradation of her reign. These were the consequences of that 
marriage which, in the anticipations both of the Queen and her 
advisers, was to have perfected her triumph over the Reformation ; 
and as if the hand of God was on the nation, a few months before 
her death a pestilential fever broke out in most parts of the 
country, so that three parts out of four were infected; and a 
fearful tempest carried destruction over the land. 

It now remains to inquire how the Queen endeavoured to recon- 
cile the kingdom to Rome, from which it had so deeply revolted. 
The rites and ceremonies of Popery were resumed without legal 
sanction, and the Parliament required to repeal the laws which 
the Court had previously commanded to be broken. But still the 
point of Papal supremacy remained unsettled, and the reversion of 
property to the Church a question of difficult solution. On all 
such points, however, the Queen took the side of bigotry, super- 
stition, and tyranny. After much caballing between the Queen 



162 

and the Pope, and between Gardiner and the Emperor, Cardinal 
Pole arrived in England, with discretionary powers, as Legate. The 
Queen haying renounced, resumed, and a second time abandoned, 
the title of Supreme Head of the Church, the Cardinal formally 
inyited the Parliament to petition for a reconciliation with Rome. 
This was done; and the representative of His Holiness solemnly 
absolved the nation ! " Thus," says Mr. Cobbett, " was England 
once more a Catholic country. She was restored to the fold of 
Christ." a But how far the sense of the country went along with 
these measures is not determined so easily as such interjectional 
sentences are written. The preliminaries to this restoration were 
secretly conducted ; the Legate could not be received with public 
honours due to his rank and commission ; and those compromises 
were obliged to be made which both disappointed Mary and 
offended His (so-called) Holiness. u She [England] was restored,'" 
Mr. Cobbett says, "to the fold of Christ; but the fold had been 
plundered of its hospitality and charity, and the plunderers, before 
they pronounced the Amen, had taken care that the plunder should 
not be restored." So strong, it appears, was the country's con- 
cern for the interest of the Church and the authority of the Pope, 
that the one was left unrepaired, and the other absolutely disobeyed; 
and, as we have seen, the Pope himself so little cared for the 
Church if only the country would own fealty and submission to him, 
that lie actually bartered the property of the Church to secure his 
own supremacy. Now we naturally ask who these plunderers were, 
and what it was which conferred importance on their opposition ? 
And Mr. Cobbett himself shall tell us that they were the Queen's 
own supporters and counsellors : — " Observe in how forlorn a state, 
as to this question, she was placed. There was scarcely a noble- 
man or gentleman of any note in the kingdom, who had not, in 
some way or other, soiled his hands with the plunder. The 
Catholic bishops, all but Fisher, had assented to the abolition of the 
Pope's supremacy. Bishop Gardiner, who was now her High 
Chancellor, was one of these, though he had been deprived of his 
bishopric and imprisoned in the Tower because he opposed 
Cranmer's projects," &c. b Then follows an acknowledgment that 
-a compromise with the plunderers was adopted. But he omits to 
note the participation and approval of the Pope, and of the bargain 
a 232. b 227. 



163 

struck between the parties. " "Now, then," he adds, 4i it was/«% 
proved to all the world, and now this plundered nation, who had 
-been reduced to the greatest misery by what had been impudently 
called the l Reformation,' * * * saw as clearly * * * 
that all the pretences of abuses in the [Roman] Catholic Church 
* * * that all these, from first to last, had proceeded from 
the love of plunder" Admitting, for a moment, the fairness of all 
this, it follows that the change from Protestantism to Popery was 
as much a mercenary compact as the former change from Popery 
to Protestantism is said to have been. And here we may pause 
and ask — How far is Popery benefited by such advocacy ? — How 
is the Reformation discredited by those wanton censures which 
fall with equal weight on both sides? The truth is, that the 
Dissolution of Monasteries had altered the state of the kingdom 
so completely that the interest of the nobles, and many of the 
principal clergy, together with the habits of the people, stood 
in the way of their restoration. Mary went as far as she was 
able; and her next step would have been to have divided the 
Romanists against her, and involved the kingdom in a civil war. 

The conduct of Mary in restoring her portion of the property of 
the Church is made the subject of invidious and unfounded praise. 
While the evidence stands, that the Crown needed the wealth in 
question more than the Church, and that at the time when the 
Queen surrendered her property, she was reduced to the necessity 
of soliciting aid from the Parliament, this part of her reign is re- 
solvable into nothing better than the most blinded superstition. 
Pope Julius III. excommunicated all who held what was called the 
property of the Church ; and haughty Paul IY. solemnly affirmed 
that Peter would not open the gates of Heaven to the English if 
they continued to usurp his patrimony on earth. The bull of 
the former, and the threat of the latter Pope had their desired 
effect on Mary. Though she could not prevail on others to 
see their danger in the same light, she determined to part with 
everything rather than risk the displeasure of St. Peter ; and, 
when expostulated with on the impolicy of her conduct, replied 
with her characteristic devotion to Popery — that she valued the 
salvation of her soul more than ten such kingdoms as England ! 
Thus her generous and disinterested acts were the compromise 
with necessity of that execrable superstition which, if it had not 

m 2 



164 

been for the strength of the Reformation, would have degraded 
the kingdom as effectually as the pusillanimity of John had for- 
merly done. If we pity the woman we despise the Queen. But the 
Parliament and nobles were not to be imposed upon ; they resisted, 
and made the same Pope, as we have seen, exempt them from 
the supposed result of his denunciations ; and, to cap the incon- 
sistency of the Papacy, Pope Paul IV., in 1555, confirmed to Lord 
Petre his share of the plunder, but — he was then Secretary of 
State to the Queen ! a No sooner was this compact sealed than, 
true to their promise, the Parliament proceeded at once to revive 
the statutes of Richard II., Henry IV., and Henry V. against 
heretics. The statute enacting this was passed with most indecent 
haste ; it was brought in on the 12th of December, sent to the 
Lords on the 15th, and passed on the 18th of the same month ! 
Rogers was the first victim of this cruel law, and led the van of 
the noble army of martyrs. 5 

The persecutions of this reign are treated by Mr. Cobbett as a 
trifling matter. He affects to see in them little injustice or 
cruelty. He compares them with the persecutions of Elizabeth. 
But, as though this were giving them an importance which does 
not belong to them, he asks, if the mass of suffering which they 
include surpassed what was endured on the same account during 
the then late reign of George III. 

The reader will, no doubt, be surprised at such a question, and 
will task his memory most severely to find anything in the annals 
of George III. to be compared with the fires of Smithfield. What 



a See the reference, ante, p. 123. 

b Mr. Cobbett cannot conceal the fact, that the Act of Parliament which 
handed back this country to Eome (1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, c. viii.) "enacted, 
that all the holders of Church property should keep it, and that any person 
who should attempt to molest or disturb them therein should be deemed 
guilty of prcemunire, and be punished accordingly," He endeavours to 
excuse Mary — "for doubtless this went to the heart of the Queen to assent 
to this Act, which was the very worst deed of her whole reign, the monstrously 
exaggerated fires of Smithfield not excepted." [232, 233.] If we wanted 
significant signs of this book being dictated by a Papist, here, I think, we have 
it. The lament is truly characteristic ; but the important fact is suppressed, 
that the Pope himself sanctioned and endorsed the bargain, including the 
very cheap and harmless dispensation and absolution. Have they nothing to 



165 

must greatly perplex him is the assertion that the great sufferings 
of the then late reign were on the same account as the martyrdoms 
under Mary ! But let Mr. Cobbett's own words explain the identity : 
— " Unless Smithfield and burning have any peculiar agency, anything 
zvorse than death to impart, did Smithfield ever witness so great a 
mass of suffering as the Old Bailey has witnessed on account of 
offences against that purely Protestant invention — bank notes ?" a 
This is like ascribing, in a former place, the typhus fever to Protes- 
tantism ! and reminds us of the saying that Tenterden steeple 
was the cause of Goodwin sands ! Bank notes, and transub starva- 
tion— -the circulation of the former, and the denial of the latter — 
are no longer, it seems, distinguishable ! We have really no 
faculties for the detection of such subtle relations, and, if we had, 
know not how the mischiefs of one can excuse the crimes of the 
other. But let us for one moment look at this part of Mary's 
administration, and we do not doubt of being able to make it 
appear so flagrantly unjust and brutal that, instead of being 
excused by a comparison with anything else, it will prepare us to 
(treat with abhorrence everything which admits of such a com- 
parison. We regard with detestation persecution in the support 
of any cause. Elizabeth and Cranmer are said by Mr. Cobbett 
to have been persecutors, if so, they have our condemnation so far 
as they were implicated in its guilt, But, in the same manner as 
we would censure, them whenever they employed in affairs of 
religion the terror of the secular arm, we have scarcely anything 
but censure for Mary, whose business, policy and religion were 
Persecution ! Mr. Cobbett, with that forgetfulness and incon- 
sistency which invariably accompany the untruthful partisan, 
asserts that Mary's persecutions " were by no means caused by the 
principles " of the Roman religion, 5 while only a little before c he 
had said, in palliation of Popish persecutions, " The law should 
acknowledge and tolerate but one religion, or it should know 
nothing at all about the matter. The Catholic code [by which he 

say in condemnation of the Pope ? To consign heretics to the flames— men, 
women, and children — is, in the estimation of Mr. Cobbett and his Papist 
patrons, less criminal than forcing property from monks which they ori- 
ginally robbed from the people. No other construction can be placed on 
his words. 

* 258. » 245. c 204. 



166 

means Popery] was consistent. It said that there was but one 
true religion, and it punished as offenders those who dared openly 
to profess any opinion contrary to that religion." Surely Mr. 
Cobbett's modern Popish admirers have overlooked this passage ! 
Persecution of (so-called) heretics is the very genius of that system. 
Laws were enacted to sanction the persecution of heretics, and 
indulgences freely given to those who carried them into effect. 
Mary was essentially a Papist, and, therefore, all the persecutions 
of her reign were on the score of religion; and this is admitted 
by Mr. Cobbett : — " Her motive was to put an end to the pro- 
pagation amongst her people of errors which she deemed destruc- 
tive of their souls, and the permission of the propagation of which 
she deemed destructive of her own creed." a Henry's prosecutions 
were, for the most part, on account of political offences, those of 
Elizabeth's exclusively so; that is, for treason against the laws 
of the country and the person of the sovereign. As a proof of this 
— burning was for heresy ; hanging, drawing and quartering were 
exclusively the lot of traitors. Again, Mr. Cobbett says that 
"rebellion" against Mary was instigated by the "Reformation 
preachers." b This is not true, and there is not the remotest justifi- 
cation for the assertion. It is in this part of " The History " that 
we trace more particularly the hand of a Jesuit writer. The fact 
of Mary's persecutions for religion cannot be denied ; it was 
necessary, therefore, to shield the Popish system — religion it is 
110 t — so Mary is made the scapegoat, and she is accordingly- 
made personally responsible for the cruelties of her reign. " If 
she had been opposed to the burning of heretics, that burning would 
certainly never have taken place." c And thus Mr. Cobbett's 
Jesuit prompter hopes to cover the Roman Church. But then 
again, he throws the ultimate responsibility on the " heretics " 
themselves through their obstinacy ! Mary's motives were, of 
course, sincere, which even " the malignant Hume," he tells us, 
" is compelled to admit." But no credit is given to Edward VI. 
for repealing those " burning " Acts of Parliament ! " Now, how- 
ever, the Catholic religion," says Mr. Cobbett, " being again the 
religion of the country, it was thought necessary to return to 
ancient statutes, which accordingly were re-enacted." Why neces- 
sary ? " That which had been law for so long a period was now 
a 246. b 238. c 246. 



167 

the law again, so that here was nothing new at any rate." Every 
possible excuse is raised for Mary ; every possible reprobation 
and abuse are heaped upon Edward and Elizabeth. Cranmer 
is vilified - r Gardiner and Bonner pass without one word of 
censure ! 

When the penal statutes against (so-called) heretics were 
revived (1554), it became a question of debate whether they should 
be employed merely to restrain by terror or to destroy by punish- 
ment. Cardinal Pole recommended lenity; Gardiner enforced 
cruelty. The former was probably a sincere man ; the other, a 
shifting time-serving courtier, but, suiting the inclination of the 
King and Queen, he prevailed. He expected, it seems, by the 
execution of a few Protestant leaders, to terrify others into 
submission, but finding the work increase upon his hands he gave 
the drudgery of it to Bonner. This Prelate, not contenting himself 
with the delivery of orders for imprisonment and death, descended 
to the most brutal indulgences in torturing his unfortunate victims 
with his own hands. All ages, both sexes, fell beneath his im- 
placable rage; pretences the most frivolous were made the 
foundation of the most sanguinary measures. A denial of 
transubstantiation was the offence into which multitudes were 
studiously drawn. Many, who were reluctant to oppose themselves 
to the faith of the Court, were seized upon suspicion and presented 
with articles for subscription, the refusal of which was death in 
every instance. Hooper, Ridley, and Latimer, and, last of all, the 
much calumniated Cranmer, fell in the storm, and even the life of 
the Princess Elizabeth was seriously endangered. Amidst these 
scenes of savage triumph the Spanish Inquisition appears to have 
been an object of envy, and, in imitation of that ghastly tribunal, 
a commission was appointed for the secret prosecution of the most 
arbitrary and iniquitous measures, and which left no probability of 
escape to any who were either religiously or politically obnoxious 
to suspicion, The circumstances which frequently attended ar- 
raignments and executions were marked with the most studied 
and insulting barbarity ; tiuo hundred and seventy-seven executions- 
arc said to have taken place in less than three years. Five bishops,, 
twenty-one divines, eight gentlemen, twenty-four artificers, one 
hundred husbandmen, servants, and labourers, eighty-four married 
women, twenty widows, nine girls, two boys, and two infants; 



168 

seven, on account of their religions opinions, whipped; sixteen 
perished in prison ; and twelve were buried in dunghills. Many, 
who were in prison waiting their condemnation, were released on 
the death of the Queen. These persecutions, let it also be remarked, 
were the most inexcusable recorded in the annals of tyranny or 
intolerance. The principal perpetrators, Mary, Gardiner and Bonner, 
had many resentments to gratify, and the two last no sooner 
found themselves in possession of power than exasperated feelings 
overflowed. They had nourished their cruelty in confinement, and 
therefore, in their liberty, became frantic and ferocious. These 
inflictions of death cannot be excused as the stern dictates of 
principles, though bad, — as politically necessary to the prosecution 
of any design, whatever were its merits ; they were excessive, 
according to every rule which the Popish advocate can furnish ; 
they formed the intemperate and heated revelry of death — an in- 
toxicating banquet of blood ; and instead of comparing them with 
the indefensible persecutions of later times, they disgust us by their 
resemblance to the cannibalism of savages. " I saw the woman 
drunken with the blood of the Saints and with the blood of the 
Martyrs of Jesus ; and when I saw her, I wondered with great 
amazement." It is impossible to close this subject without pausing 
over the grave of the martyrs, and, whatever were their errors, 
admiring their constancy unto death. Would that we could 
imitate their firmness, and emulate the triumph of their faith ! — a 
faith which, though condemned by the profane as without works, 
''wrought wonders," and stands upon record as our incentive to 
perseverance and enterprise. Mr. Cobbett, with a malignity which, 
on this subject, renders him unworthy of any answer, says of the 
martyrs, that they were "generally a set of the most wicked 
wretches, and, without a single exception, apostates, perjurers, and 
plunderers ;" a slander, to give the least probability to which 
would be a more difficult task than even he ever had the temerity 
to attempt. Their fate is what the most illustrious servants of the 
Cross must always expect — chilling neglect, or the grossest mis- 
representation, and the most inveterate enmity. They have seldom 
been chosen as the ornaments of history, and have, in few instances, 
furnished inspiration to the poet. 



169 

" Their blood is shed 
In confirmation of the noblest claim— 
Our claim to feed upon immortal truth, 
To walk with G-od, to be divinely free, 
To soar and to anticipate the skies, 
Yet few remembered them. They lived unknown, 
Till persecution dragged them into fame, 
And chased them up to Heaven. Their ashes flew— 
No marble tells us whither. "With their names, 
No bard embalms and sanctifies his song. 
And History, so warm on meaner themes, 
Is cold on this. She execrates, indeed, 
The tyranny that doomed them to the fire, 
.But gives the glorious sufferers little praise." 

Task. b. V. 

As Protestants let it be our aim to illustrate the power of 
their example, and by our self-denial and devotedness in piety, to 
preserve and purify the principles they have committed to our 
charge ! 



CHAPTEE VII. 

ELIZABETH. 

Mr. Cobbett has reserved for Queen Elizabeth his most bitter 
and offensive invectives. I -will repeat here what I have already 
brought before the reader. With Mr. Cobbett, Elizabeth is every- 
thing that is mean, despicable, crnel, brutal, and licentious. He 
calls her in several places, in derision, " the Vibgin Saint Eliza- 
beth," 51 the word " Virgin" always printed in large capitals. 
Also, " the horrible woman." b " Horrible virago." c The " savage 
good Queen Bess." d " The ferocious woman." e " To whom truth, 
justice, and mercy were alike unknown." f "Foul tyrant." § 
"Ferocious Protestant apostate." 11 " A notorious apostate, from 
motives as notoriously selfish." 1 " Inexorable ajDostate/'J "As 
great a tyrant as ever lived." k " Brutal hypocrite." 1 " Termagant 
tyrant." m "Horrible she tyrant." 11 "Horrible lynx-like she 
tyrant." ° " The butchering and racking Elizabeth." p " The good 
and glorious maiden, and racking and ripping-up Betsy." * Without 
the slightest attempt at proof, he says that " her disgusting amours 
were notorious." r " Historians have been divided in opinion, as 
to which was the ivorst man that England ever produced, her father 
or Crannier ; but all mankind must agree that this was the icorst 
woman that ever existed in England, or in the whole world, Jezabel 
herself not excepted." s He repeatedly refers to " her unparalleled 
cruelties, her flagrant falsehoods, her haughtiness, her insolence, 
her lewd life." * " This Queen," he says, " was resolved to reign ; the 
blood of her people she deemed necessary to her own safety, and 
she never scrupled to make it flow." u " She never cared for the 
character or principles of those she employed, so that they did but 
answer her selfish ends." v " Her reign was almost one unbroken 
series of robberies and butcheries." w " During the whole of that 
reign, she was busily engaged in persecuting, in ruining, in ripping 



a 217, &c. 


b 341. 


c 340. 


d 318. e 348. 


f 345. 


S339. 


h 339. 


*293. 


i 341. k 305. 


1 339. 


» 341. 


n 331. 


°324. 


p Part ii. 19. 


1351. 


'305. 


s 348. 


tSOo. 


u 266. v 297. 


• 324. 



171 

up the bowels of those who entertained the faith." a He calls it " the 
pauper and ripping reign." b " She established," he tells us, " an 
Inquisition, more horrible than ever was heard of in the world." c 
" " The Spanish Inquisition, from its first establishment to its present 
hour, has not committed so much cruelty as this ferocious Pro- 
testant apostate in one single year of the forty-three years of her 
reign." d " Even the massacre of St. Bartholomew was nothing, 
when fairly compared with the butcheries and other cruelties of the 
reign of this Protestant Queen of England. Yes ; a mere nothing ! " e 
As the result of this reign, Mr. Cobbett adds : — " Thus was the nation 
heavily taxed, afflicted with war, and afflicted with pestilence; 
thousands upon thousands of English people destroyed, or ruined, 
or rendered miserable, merely to gratify this proud and malignant 
woman, who thought that she could never be safe until all the 
world joined in her flagrant apostacy." f 

Authentic history, however, informs us of Elizabeth's great 
popularity, and of the rejoicing when she came to the throne, and 
of the undoubted prosperity of her reign, and the general happiness 
and content of her subjects. In the twenty-fifth year of her age 
Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen of England, 17th November, 1558, 
according to the Act of Succession of 35th Henry VIII., not only 
without a dissentient voice, but with the universal acclamation and 
joy of the people of England. Her first act was to select her own 
Council. These were twenty in number : thirteen were members of 
the old Council of Queen Mary, and all Popish • the other seven 
had embraced the Eeformed religion, but had not served under 
Mary. 

England was then labouring under complications ; at home em- 
broiled in a Scottish war, and abroad in a state of hostility with 
France. The nation was encumbered with a heavy debt, incurred 
by Henry VIII. , Edward, and Mary; and with an empty treasury. 
The country was dishonoured by the loss of Calais and other foreign 
possessions, cut off from all foreign alliances, and the people dis- 
tracted by contending religious factions. But such was the pros- 
perity of the country under the guidance of Elizabeth that, within 
four years, " the Estates assembled in Parliament, congratulating 
the happiness of the times, granted to her, the clergy one subsidy, 
and the laity another ; expressing the reasons of this gratuity, to 
* 107. b 259. c 338. d 339. e 269. f 234. 



172 

wit, for that she had reformed religion, restored peace, delivered 
both England and Scotland from the foreign enemy, refined the 
moneys of the land, renewed the navy, provided ammunition for 
war, both by sea and land," &c. a 

This was a difficulty in the way of Mr. Cobbett in the outset of 
his review of this reign, and required to be explained away, or 
otherwise satisfactorily accounted for. His ingenuity failed him. 
for his very excuse raised a still greater difficulty. However, Mr. 
Cobbett commenced the task by dwelling on the misfortunes which 
would have resulted had her right to the Crown been denied, as the 
throne would in that case have been claimed by a foreign Prince, 
the Dauphin of France, the then husband of Mary of Scotland. 
■" Mary Stuart," he tells us, " was now, 1559, Queen Consort of 
France, Queen of Scotland, and called herself Queen of England ; 
she and her husband bore the arms of England along with those of 
France and Scotland ; and the Pope had refused to acknowledge 
the right of Elizabeth to the English throne." " This was the real 
cause of Elizabeth's success in her work of extirpating the Catholic 
religion." b Indeed, Mr. Cobbett maintains that Elizabeth's success 
in establishing the Reformation, from first to last, arose from the 
nation's jealousy on this head. "The question," he says, "with 
the nation was, in short — the Protestant religion, Elizabeth, and in- 
depen dence ; or — the Catholic religion, Mary Stuart, and subjection 
to foreigners. They decided for the former." " Here we have the 
great, and, indeed, the only, cause of Elizabeth's success in rooting 
out the Catholic religion. Her people were, ninety-nine hundredths 
of them, Catholics." d Mr. Cobbett trades on the supposed igno- 
rance of his readers. What are the facts? Elizabeth came to 
the throne, as I have said, on the 17th November, 1558. On the 
27th December it was permitted that the Epistles, Gospels, Ten 
Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed and the Litany 
should be used in the vulgar tongue. On the 22nd March, 1559, 
when the Estates of the Realm were assembled, by a renewal of a 
law of Edward VI., the communion was allowed to be administered 
in both elements, bread and wine. On the 24th June, under the 
authority of an Act " concerning the Uniformity of Public Prayer, 

a See Camden's " Annals of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth," " To the 
Reader," 3rd edition. London, 1635. 

b 303, 304. c 308. a 305. 



173 

and Administration of the Sacraments," the sacrifice of the mass 
was abolished, and the Litany in the English language was estab- 
lished. In the month of July the Oath of Supremacy was adminis- 
tered to bishops and others ; and in August images were remoyed 
out of the churches, broken or burnt ; and by Act of Parliament 
passed in the first year of her reign, section 36, it was expressly 
provided that no matter should be deemed or considered a heresy 
except such points as were adjudged heresy by the authority of 
the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils of 
the Christian Church. All this was accomplished in a few months 
without the sacrifice of one single life, without persecution or 
compulsion. " By means of this alteration of religion," observes 
Camden, a " England, as politicians have observed, became of all the 
kingdoms of Christendom the most free, the sceptre being, as it 
were, delivered from the foreign servitude of the Bishop of Rome ; 
and more wealthy than in former ages, an infinite mass of money 
being stayed at home which was wont to be exported daily to 
Rome, being incredibly exhausted from the commonwealth for first- 
fruits, pardons, appeals, dispensations, bulls, and other such like." 
The first Act of her reign, 1 Eliz., c. i., established that the Queen 
" was the only and supreme governor of the kingdom in all matters 
or causes, as well spiritual as temporal, all foreign princes and 
potentates being quite excluded from taking cognizance in causes 
within her dominions." This was to bring back England to a state 
of independence of the Bishop of Rome, to which it had been again 
subjected by Queen Mary. Mr. Cobbett deliberately misrepresents 
the scope of this Act by stating, that " all persons were compelled to 
take the oath of supremacy on pain of death ;" b whereas by this Act 
an oath was imposed only on all public officers, lay and ecclesiastical, 
to acknowledge such supremacy, under certain penalties : for the first 
offence (if a lay officer), forfeiture of goods ; if under value of £20, 
one year's imprisonment ; if ecclesiastical, deprivation : for the 
second offence, then the penalties prescribed by the Act 16 Rich. III., 
the Statute of Procursors and Praemunire, an Act passed in Popish 
times : for the third, by being subject to the penalties of high 
treason. Of all the temporal lords only two refused to take the 
oath— Shrewsbury and Montague; of the ecclesiastics, as many 
as refused to take this oath were turned out of their livings, 
a Book i, p. 20, as above. b 267. 



174 

dignities, and bishoprics. There were then upwards of nine 
thousand four hundred ecclesiastics holding preferments : of these 
only eighty parsons of churches, fifty prebends, fifteen presidents 
of colleges, twelve archdeans, twelve deans, six abbots and abbesses, 
and fourteen bishops, in all under two hundred out of nine thousand 
four hundred refused, all the others readily and without any compul- 
sion took the oath of allegiance to the Queen, and adopted the new 
order of things with the English Liturgy . a It must be remembered 
that during Mary's reign all the reforming Bishops had been dis- 
posed of. Of the Irish Bishops all hut two abandoned the Pope, 
and were accompanied by almost the entire body of the clergy. b 
All these cheerfully submitted to the new order of things, retaining 
the same churches and cures which they before respectively held. 
Three of the Bishops in England, who refused to take the oath, were 
first sent to prison, but were shortly afterwards committed to the 
custody of their friends ; two, Lincoln and Winchester, who 
threatened to excommunicate the Queen, were detained ; and three 
left the country. Now all these ecclesiastics were thoroughly 
Popish during Mary's reign. If Mr. Cobbett's version be true, 
that they, one and all, abandoned their faith and allegiance to the 
Pope ; and that, " to acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in 
spiritual matters was to renounce the Pope and their Catholic 
religion," or, in other words, to become apostates ; c and that " they 
preferred the Protestant religion, Elizabeth, and independence, to 
the Catholic religion, Mary Stuart, and subjection to foreigners ;" d 
surely such a representation is a libel on the whole " Catholic" 
body as such. It is as much as to assert that loyalty to Queen and 
country is incompatible with Romish ascendancy. It is to accuse 
the Romanists of those days of conduct little worthy of the cause he 

a Camden's " Annals of Elizabeth," as above, p. 17. 

b " The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland ;" Dr. Murray, 2nd edition, 
c. xii, p. 203, et seq. London, 1848. c 267. 

a It was, however, a fact that Francis II. and his wife, the Queen of 
Scots, did usurp the title of " King and Queen of England and Ireland," and 
bore our arms and paraded them before the world. At the very beginning of 
Elizabeth's reign, Strype (" Annals," Introduction, sec. i.) tells us that " there 
were some already of the Popish faction contriving mischief against the 
Queen by setting up the Scotch Queen's title, and by getting assistance 
from the Guises in France to carry on their designs on their behalf." In 
this plot Cardinal Pole's brothers were concerned 1 



175 

has constituted himself as a champion to defend, and little to the 
credit of the Papists. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that 
Romanists at the present day should take so much pains to publish 
such a libel on themselves. These Romish patriots — priests, too ! 
surrendered their religion, and were traitors to their Church and 
became apostates, in order that they should be free from the subjec- 
tion of a foreigner — a foreigner, too, who was of their own religion, 
and a protegee of the Pope ! Yes ; Mr. Cobbett makes these very 
men set at nought the Pope himself, so hard pressed is he to find a 
reasonable solution for this extraordinary phenomenon, that the 
entire Romish priesthood of the country should abandon the essence 
of the Roman faith — the spiritual supremacy of the Pope and the 
mass, and embrace the Reformed Religion ! a With reference to the 
Pope's excommunication, which afterwards followed, Mr. Cobbett 
adds : — " Though the decision of the Pope was perfectly honest and 
just in itself, that decision was, in its obvious and inevitable conse- 
quences, rendered by a combination, hostile to the greatness, the 
laws, the liberties, and a laudable pride of Englishmen, that they 
were reduced to the absolute necessity of setting his decision at 
nought, or of surrendering their very name as a nation." b This 
excommunication did not take place, however, until Elizabeth had 
reigned twelve years. Now the danger to be apprehended was, ac- 
cording to Mr. Cobbett, in consequence of the marriage of Mary 
Stuart with the Dauphin of France, by which act she became Queen 
Consort of France, and he, in her right, a claimant to the Crown 
of England. This occurred eight months after Elizabeth's acces- 
sion ; c but seventeen months after this event, Francis II., her 
husband died, and her political importance in France, as Mr. 

8 The reader must bear in inind that the whole fabric of the Roman or 
Papal system rests on the claim to a spiritual primacy of the Bishop of 
Rome over all Christian Churches. Cardinal Bellarmine asks the question, 
1 'What is the question at issue, when we treat of the Primacy of the 
Roman Pontiff ? It is, I reply, in fact, the sum and substance of Chris- 
tianity." " De qua 4 re agitur de primatu Pontlficis agitur ? Brevissime 
dicam, de summa 4 rei Christiana?." [Bellarmine, "Praef. in libros de 
Pontifice," torn. i. p. 189, edition 1615]. And here, as also in Ireland, 
we had bishops and priests without hesitation renouncing the very heart 
and essential principle of their religion for the acknowledgment of the 
supremacy of a woman ! 

b 304. c 262, 303. 



176 

Cobbett himself admits, ceased. She had enemies in that country,' 
and " her husband's mother, Catherine de Medici, soon convinced 
her that to be anything she must return to Scotland." a Mr. 
Cobbett is not particular in assigning effects to wrong causes, and 
his excuses, therefore, fall to the ground; and forgetting the 
reasons assigned for this unprecedented bloodless Reformation 
throughout the whole nation, he subsequently admits that " there 
was, for the present at least, an end to the danger from a union 
of Scotland with France," b and, of course, with it the alleged 
dread of " subjection to foreigners." Nevertheless, none of these 
ecclesiastics relapsed into Popery. Mr. Cobbett's subtlety defeats 
its object. But mark the further inconsistency of the advocate. 
Mr. Cobbett would have us believe that the nation thus becoming 
Protestant, those Romanists who became apostates were actuated 
by a high patriotic motive — a voluntary election beween " inde- 
pendence" or " subjection to a foreigner." They "were reduced 
to the absolute necessity of setting the Pope's decision at nought, 
or of surrendering their very name as a nation !" and yet he brands 
Elizabeth herself as " a notorious apostate, from motives as notori- 
ously selfish ;" c and says that in order to carry out her " selfish end," 
she " crammed Cranmer's creed down the throats of her people ;" d 
"having pulled down the altars, set up the tables ;" e and that she- 
" ousted the Catholic priest and worship, and put up in their stead 
a set of hungry beggarly creatures, the very scum of earth, with 
Cranmer's prayerbook amended in their hands ;" f and he further 
tells us that " she compelled them to acknowledge her supremacy 
in spiritual matters, to renounce the Pope and the Catholic re- 
ligion, or, in other words, to become apostate." s A man who 
undertakes to write a "history" of any particular event, and 
records such glaring contradictions and inconsistencies, is beneath 
contempt, and one feels humiliated in being occupied in the task of 
refuting this so-called history. There were, however, natural 
causes which operated in bringing about this change so readily. 
No pressure was necessary to establish a Reformation, for Queen 
Mary herself acknowledged that the minds of the people were " so 
alienated from the Pope" in her reign, that she confessed as much 

8 306. b 307. c293. d 261. 

e 269. f 269. r 267. 



177 

to Cardinal Pole. a To such an extent was this the case, that she did 
not dare to admit him as the Pope's Legate : — " Your public delega- 
tion," she wrote to him, " is so distrusted, and so odious to our sub- 
jects, that your speedier approach, though it would be very desirable 
to us, would bring more prejudice than benefit." Speaking of her 
own situation to Commendone, she said : — " I must wait until my 
people's feelings towards the Apostolic See are somewhat modified, 
or until I am more firmly seated on the throne. At present the very 
name of Kome is mortally hated here." b Pole, in fact, feared to 
appear in his capacity of Legate. Turner quotes a document wherein 
Pole admits " that there were few in the kingdom who were on the 
side of the Pope." c And in a letter to the Emperor Charles V., 
in speaking to him of England, Pole said : — " The name of 
obedience to the Church [of Rome] is universally abhorred there, 
and so is the red hat and the monastic garments." d The persecu- 
tions by the Papists under Mary's reign did not tend to foster a 
better feeling; and what is the more important, Mary mentions 
that a measure proposed by her Privy Councillors and Bishops 
was "suspected" by the House of Commons to be "proposed 
from favour of the Pope, in order that the title of Supreme Head 
of the Church, which had been annexed to the Crown, might be 
taken from it, and that he might bring back the power of the Pope 
into our kingdom. We are therefore afraid," she goes on to say, 
" lest they should insist upon our continuing and assuming this 
title more pertinaciously than we desire." And to appease the 
mistrust of the people she did, in the first session of her Parlia- 
ment, continue the title " Supreme Head of the Church of England 
and Ireland." e When the pressure of persecutions and compulsion 
was removed, the transition was easy and natural. 

With reference to this " Oath of Supremacy " I must not pass 
over a piece of wilful misrepresentation propagated by the Roman 
Catholic publishers of Mr. Cobbett's book. Their last edition has 
on the outer wrapper a coarse engraving of Queen Elizabeth in the 

a 27th Oct., 1553. See Sharon Turner's "Modern History of England," 
vol. iii, p. 408. London, 1835. 

b Soames' " History of the Keformation," vol. iv, p. 76. London, 1826. 
c Turner's " History of England," vol. iii, p. 413. London, 1835. 
d Ibid, p. 450. 
« Ibid, p. 411. 



178 

act of consecrating a bishop, the words " Queen Elizabeth Con- 
secrating an Archbishop" printed under it. This is a most wilful 
and atrocious calumny. As if the book itself did not contain 
sufficient misrepresentations, they must " endorse " the book it- 
self with another ! When Henry VIII. re-assumed the title of 
" Supreme Head of the Church of England," he specially disclaimed 
the right to administer any spiritual act, and he proclaimed that 
he did not " take any spiritual power from spiritual ministers that 
is given to them by the Gospel." a Queen Mary, on ascending the 
throne, passed an Act recognising in her, a female, all the titles 
and prerogatives of the late King, and she retained the title of 
" Supreme Head of the Church of England and Ireland," for 
nearly a year after her accession. But Queen Elizabeth in order 
to avoid giving offence did not assume the title of " Supreme 
Head of the Church," but " Only Supreme Governor of the 
Realm," and the Oath of Supremacy was altered accordingly. 
The 37th Article of the Church of England is clear on this. She 
issued an edict on this subject in order that no mistake should 
occur. 

Dr. O'Connor, a candid Romish priest, has given the proper 
interpretation and explanation of this Oath of {Supremacy. He 
says : — b 

" In the first of Elizabeth in England, and in her second in 
Ireland, the title of ' Head of the Church,' which gave offence to 
the Catholics, was omitted, and that of ' Only Supreme Governor 
of this Realm ' was substituted in its stead. This last is the only 
title which our Kings have ever since assumed; and it is a mark of 
vile dishonesty on the part of our foreign influenced writers, that 
they represent the title of the ' Head of the Church ' as still used 
in the diplomatic language of our Kings. But they are shame- 
fully lost to every sense of decorum in this respect ; insensible of 
the soundness of truth. 

" Queen Elizabeth herself declared by solemn injunctions to all 
her subjects, that she pretended to no authority over the Church, 
but what was of ancient times due to the imperial crown of 

a Quoted by Froude, from the Rolls MSS., ''History of England," vol. ii, 
p. 347. London, 1856. 

b " Historical Address on Foreign Influence," part ii, pp. 276, 277. 
Buckingham, 1810. 



179 

England, and she allowed every one to take the oath subject to 
this explanation. The same sense was put upon it by all the 
clergy of England assembled in Convocation, in the 37th Article 
of Religion, agreed to by them in 1562." a 

We may fairly ask what possible object our Eoman Catholic 
fellow countrymen can have in propagating such a falsehood as is 
conveyed by the engraving paraded in front of the work ? 

Mr. Cobbett, having thus endeavoured to account for the sub- 
mission of the Romish priesthood to this new order of things, lets 
us now see in what light the Pope himself received this Reforma- 
tion. His priests at least were (according to Mr. Cobbett) 
actuated by patriotic motives. The Pope was, by his own con- 
fession, actuated by ambitious and sordid motives, for, on Sir 
Edward Carne, the English Ambassador at Rome, notifying to 
Paul IV. the accession of Elizabeth to the throne without consult- 
ing him, " he told Carne, that England was a fief of the Holy See, 
and that it was great temerity in Elizabeth to have assumed, with- 
out his participation, the title and authority of Queen." b 

But Pope Paul, rinding that Elizabeth was firm and determined 
to hold her own against this insolent usurpation, offered to her to 
let things remain as they were, provided she would acknowledge 
his primacy, and a Reformation from him." c His successor, 
Pius IV., proffered the same conditions to the Queen by letter 
written 5th May, 1560, wherein he offered to comply with all her 
requests to the utmost of his power provided she would allow of 
his primacy ; d and Paul V. (the same Paul who afterwards issued 
the bull of excommunication against Elizabeth), thirty-three years 
after Elizabeth's birth, and in the seventh year of her reign, offered 
to reverse the Papal sentence which declared her illegitimate, if 
she would submit to his rule. The Spanish Ambassador in 

a The document here alluded to is given in Wilkins's " Concilia," vol. iv, 
p. 108. London, 1737. 

b Hume's " History of England," c. xxxviii. 

c See Sir Roger Twysden's " Tortura Torti," p. 148. London, 1657. 

* The Latin letter is included in Dr. Card well's documentary " Annals 
of the Reformed Church of England." Oxford, 1839 ; vol. i, p. 233. "In 
ejus gratiam, quascumque possim prseterea facturus, dum ilia ad nostram 
Ecclesiam se recipiat, et debitum mihi Primatus titulum mihi reddat." 
And see Sir Roger Twysden's "Historical Vindication of the Church of 
England," c. ix, p. 177. Cambridge, 1847, or London, 1657. 

N 2 



180 

England, De Silva, assured Queen Elizabeth that she had only to 
express a desire to that effect, and the Pope would immediately 
remove the difficulty. a 

Camden, in his " Annals of Elizabeth," b gives the text of a 
letter addressed by Pope Pius IV. to Elizabeth, under date 15th 
May, 1560, wherein he addresses her as " our most dear daughter 
in Christ, Elizabeth, Queen of England," expressing his " great 
desire * * * to take care of her salvation, and to provide as 
well for her honour as the establishment of her kingdom !" The 
reader must bear in mind, however, that when Elizabeth had 
acquainted the Pope, through her Ambassador at Rome, of her 
succession to the throne, he received the message with haughty dis- 
dain, declaring that England was a fief of the Apostolic See, that 
she could not succeed to the throne without his consent, and that 
if she renounced her pretension, and would accept the dignity at 
his hands, he would show her a fatherly affection. c On this the 
Queen withdrew her Ambassador, -and the subsequent Popes, as we 
have seen, altered their tone towards her. 

Thus matters stood, and I shall so leave them for a time, while I 
consider the first charge against Elizabeth brought by Mr. Cobbett, 
namely : — " It is to the Reformation that we, even to this day, owe 
that we have to lament the loss of Calais, which was, at last, irre- 
trievably lost by the selfishness and perfidy of Elizabeth." d Calais, 
which had been in the possession of England since 1347, when taken 
by our Edward III., was lost by Queen Mary in 1557-8 ; notwith- 
standing this fact, Mr. Cobbett most unjustly throws the disgrace of 
the loss on Elizabeth, because she did not plunge the nation into a 
war with France at the commencement of her reign to regain that 
loss ! He tells us that she " declined the generous offer of Philip 
of Spain [Mary's late husband] " for getting back Calais, who 
offered to enter into a treaty with this nation " to continue the 
war for six years unless Calais was restored, provided Elizabeth 
bound herself not to make a separate peace for that period." Mr. 
Cobbett says that in " declining this generous offer !" " she began 

* See De Silva's letter to Philip II. of Spain, dated December, 1566, cited 
in full by Froude in his "History of England," vol. viii, pp. 329, 330. 
London, 1863. De Silva was then the Ambassador of Spain in England. 

i> B. i, p. 34, 3rd Edit. London, 1635. 

c Heylyn " Eccl. Restorat.," p. 275. London, 1674. 

a 256. 



181 

to rip up her subjects, and was afraid of war, and, therefore, clan- 
destinely entered into negotiations with France, and it was agreed 
that the latter should keep Calais for eight years, and pay to 
England 500,000 crowns." The charge is that Elizabeth sold 
Calais for a given sum; the treaty with France, he says, was 
for the restoration of the town in eight years, or the payment of 
the stipulated sum. Mr. Cobbett, as usual, gives no authority 
for his assertion. The French historian Rapin, however, gives a 
different version of this transaction, which wholly destroys the 
foundation of Mr. Cobbett's calumny. He says, " It was agreed 
that, notwithstanding whether the said sum was paid or not paid, 
the King of France and his successors should remain under the 
obligation to restore Calais and the other places, as they engaged 
by this treaty. These are the express words of the treaty." a 

But the principal charge against Elizabeth is her persecuting 
spirit and her unparalleled cruelty : — " It was not long before she 
began ripping up the bowels of her unhappy subjects because they 
were Roman Catholics." b He calls her the savage, ferocious, brutal, 
butchering, racking, and ripping-up Betsy, and declares that her 
reign was almost one unbroken series of robberies and butcheries ; 
and during the whole of that reign she was busily engaged in 
persecuting, in ruining, in ripping up the bowels of those who 
entertained the [Roman] faith. " The Inquisition she established," 
he says, " was more horrible than ever was heard of in the world. 
The Spanish Inquisition, from the first establishment to its present 
hour, had not committed so much cruelty as this ferocious 
Protestant Apostate in any one single year of the forty-three years of 
her reign." " Even the Massacre of St. Bartholomew," he adds, "was 
nothing when compared to her butcheries — yes ; a mere nothing ! " 
If Mr. Cobbett had written all this, published it, and his statements 
had been allowed to pass for what they were worth, the refutation 
of the gross untruths would have been wholly unnecessary : but 
when Roman Catholics have translated this book into almost every 
European language, reproduced, re-published, and distributed it at 
an unprecedently cheap price, and quote it on all occasions as the 
testimony of a " Protestant historian," then, indeed, it becomes 
necessary to publish a reply, if it be only to show to what desperate 
-shifts even modern advocates of Popery are put, in order to make 
a Rapin's History, b. xvii. Loudon, 1721. b 260. 



182 

themselves appear white by the contrast, by blackening the 
character of others by the aid of the inconsistencies and false- 
hoods of Mr. Cobbett. 

With our present notions no one will maintain the right to 
uphold any system, religious or political, by persecution. No 
honest person will applaud or even justify Elizabeth or any one else 
for enforcing any system on the people, except Mr. Cobbett himself; 
for, while he is railing against Elizabeth for enforcing the principles 
of the Reformation, and condemns her as a persecutor, he actually 
discovers in Popery a virtue in maintaining this principle : — " The 
Catholic code," he says, " was consistent. It said, that there was 
but one true religion, and it punished, as offenders, those who dared 
openly to profess any opinion contrary to that religion." This is 
admitting, and even vindicating its persecuting character, which 
some modern Romanists are so anxious to disclaim. 

But the real question at issue is whether Elizabeth did enforce 
the reformed religion on any one by compulsion or torture, or by 
other undue means. It resolves itself into the fact, one way or the 
other, whether undue means were employed by Elizabeth and her 
advisers ; and whether, taking into consideration the spirit of the 
times and the conspiracies against the crown and life of Elizabeth, 
her laws could be declared to be persecuting, and the victims of 
those laws to be martyrs. Let the reader decide from the historical 
facts which I propose to adduce, a series of events which have not 
their parallel in any country in any age. 

With reference to the number of victims who suffered under this 
reign, I have already noticed the extravagant statements put 
forth by Mr. Cobbett, without one single reference to support his 
assertion, without one attempt at proof; but when he makes a 
comparison between the numbers who suffered under Elizabeth and 
Mary, we arrive at some vague data. He says " Elizabeth put, in 
one way or another, more Catholics to death in one year, for not- 
becoming apostates to the religion she had sworn to be hers, and 
to be the only true one, than Mary put to death in her whole reign 
for having apostatised from the religion of her and their fathers." a 
u For every drop of blood Mary shed, Elizabeth shed a pint." b 
Dodd, the Romish writer and Church historian, and a great authority 
among Romanists, places the number who suffered death under 
* 269. b 223. 



183 

Elizabeth at one hundred and ninety-nine. Dr. Milner — the vera- 
cious Dr. Milner, the most zealous and uncompromising advocate of 
Romanism — with all his researches, placed the number at two hun- 
dred and four* The number of " martyrs " under Queen Mary's 
reign stands confessedly at two hundred and seventy-seven ; and while 
this disparity of numbers is thus proved, we should take into account 
the series of treasons and attempts to murder Queen Elizabeth by 
those who suffered, and that " her whole reign " extended to the term 
of forty-four years, while that of Mary's only slightly exceeded five ! 

We may fairly ask the reader to compare the conduct of Elizabeth 
and her advisers, with that of Mary and her advisers Gardiner, 
Bonner, and Pole. Mary was proclaimed Queen 19th July, 1553; in 
September, she refused to recognise the legality of the marriage of 
the clergy, and married priests were ordered either to quit their 
wives or leave their benefices. Bishops Warlow, Bush, Hooper, 
Ferrers, Bird, Holgate, Coverdale, Ridley, Scory, Donet, Cranmer, 
and Latimer were deprived of their sees, and some of them im- 
prisoned ; besides an immense number of priests ; and several of them 
were publicly burnt alive ; and Elizabeth herself was kept as a close 
prisoner, though there was not the slightest evidence of her 
disloyalty to the Queen. There is a remarkable passage in one of 
the letters written by Renard, the Ambassador of Charles V. 
(Queen Mary's cousin) at the Court of England. Such had been 
the persecutions by Mary that Renard, in June, 1555, writing to 
the Emperor, said : — 

" The entire future turns on the accouchement of the Queen, of 
which, however, there are no signs. If all goes well, the state of 
feeling in the country will improve. If she is in error, I foresee 
convulsions and disturbances such as no pen can describe. The 
succession to the Crown is so unfortunately hampered that it must 
fall to Elizabeth, and with Elizabeth there will be a religious 
revolution, the clergy will be put down, the Catholics persecuted, 
and there will be such revenge for the present proceedings as the 
world has never seen." b 

a See " Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scotch Catholics," 
&c., by Charles Butler, Esq., vol. i, p. 398. London, 1822. Mr. Butler was 
educated at the Romish College of Douay. 

b " Renard to the Emperor," June 27th, 1553. Grcnvillc Papers, vol. vi, 
quoted in Froude's " History of England," vol. vi, p. 351. London, 1SC0. 



184 

This is the retributive justice that was expected; but Elizabeth 
was not a Mary. The nation was quite satisfied in casting off the 
" works of darkness, and in putting on the armour of light." The 
nation groaned under Papal tyranny and persecutions, and relief 
was given by the liberal and enlightened spirit of Protestantism. 

When Papists refer to the penal laws of this period, they never 
state what they prescribed, and what offences they were enacted 
to suppress, and Mr. Cobbett follows this example. Let the laws 
speak for themselves. Having referred to the Act of Supremacy, 
the next alleged penal Act was the " Act of Uniformity." a This 
Act subjected offenders to certain penalties. The offences were 
" derogating and depraving the Book of Common Prayer, com- 
pelling ministers to use another, and unlawfully interrupting them 
in the use of the Common Prayer." "Was there no call for this Act ? 
Let us see. Camden tells us that the followers of the rebel Earls 
Northumberland and Westmoreland " showed their Popish zeal, 
among other outrages, in entering into the churches, and there 
cutting and tearing the Bibles and Common Prayer Books, and 
treading them under their feet." b The offenders were to be first 
convicted by a jury of twelve men. The penalty was a forfeiture 
of one hundred marks ; for a third offence, imprisonment. This 
was the law established by a solemn Act of Parliament. Now, 
let the reader compare this with what the Popish Mary ordered by 
her simple " Proclamation." " Whosoever shall be found to have any 
of the said wicked and seditious books [that is, so called heretical 
books], or finding them, did not forthwith burn the same, without 
showing or reading the same to any other person, shall, in that case, 
be reputed and taken for a rebel, and shall ivithout delay be executed 
for that offence according to martial law." c And this sanguinary 
decree was issued simply for having in one's possession alleged 
heretical books, and the condemned had not even the benefit of a 
legal trial ! 

To go further back to earlier Popish times. What was the law 
then? By the Statute 2 Henry IV., c. 15, specially levelled 

a 1 Eliz., c. ii. 

b Strype's " Annals of Queen Elizabeth," c. liv, vol. i, p. 322. Oxford 
edition, 1842 ; and Camden's "Annals," p. 115. London, 1635. 

c See Wilkins's " Concilia," tom. iv, pp. 155, &c, & 163. London, 1737 ; 
and Fose's " Acts and Monuments," vol. iii, p. 732. Edition, 1684. 



185 

against so-called heretical preachers, " On the prayer of the Prelates, 
it is enacted that none shall preach without licence; and any 
offender against the Act shall be arrested by the diocesan, and 
imprisoned and fined ; and any person refusing to abjure, or re- 
lapsing, shall be delivered to the sheriff, who then, before the 
people, on a high place, are to be burnt, that such punishment may 
strike fear in the minds of others, so that such wicked doctrines 
nor its authors shall be in any wise suffered.". Why, I ask, are 
Mr. Cobbett's censures and wrath reserved for the Keformers ? 
Here, " on the prayer of the Prelates" (all Eomanists), is a decree 
committing to the flames all who refused to embrace the Popish 
religion. No wonder the Keformation was retarded ! But it came 
at last, and all the fires of Smithfield could not arrest its progress ! 

With reference to the Act passed in the first year of Elizabeth's 
reign as to her supremacy, Mr. Cobbett says, " All persons were 
compelled to take the oath of supremacy on pain of death. To 
take the oath of supremacy, that is to say, to acknowledge the 
Queen's supremacy in spiritual matters, was to renounce the Pope 
and the Catholic religion; or, in other words, to become an 
apostate. Thus was a very large part of her people at once con- 
demned to death, for adhering to the religion of their fathers." a I 
cannot do better than quote the testimony of Eomanists themselves, 
in reply to this choice specimen of Mr. Cobbett's facile mode of 
recording the grossest calumny and falsehood. In the year 1601, 
•" sundry Secular Priests " published, during the reign of Elizabeth, 
a statement of their case, with an epistolary introduction written 
by Priest Watson. It is entitled " Important considerations which 
ought to move all true and sound Catholics, who are not wholly 
Jesuited, to acknowledge, without all equivocations, ambiguities, 
or shiftings, that the proceedings of Her Majesty [Elizabeth] and 
of the state with them since the beginning of Her Highness's reign, 
have been both mild and merciful." b " It cannot be denied," say the 
Secular Priests, the writers of this document, " but that for the 
first ten years of her Majesty's reign, the state of England was 

a 267. 

b This document was reprinted by the Rev. Joseph Mendham, London, 
1831, in which the authenticity and genuineness of the original is fully 
established. A full account of this book is given by an ecclesiastical 
historian of the Roman communion— Dodd. See his " Church History of 
England," vol. ii, pp. 379, 380, Bruxelles, 1739. 



186 

tolerable, and, after a sort, in some good quietness. Such as for 
their conscience were imprisoned in the beginning of her coming to 
the crown were kindly and mercifully used, the state of things 
considered. Some of them were appointed to remain with such of 
their friends as they themselves chose of. Others were placed, some 
with bishops, some with deans, and had their diet at their tables, 
with such convenient lodgings and walks for their recreation as did 
well content them. They that were in the ordinary prisons had such 
liberty and other commodities as the places would afford, not in- 
convenient for men that were in their cases." They then appeal 
even to the Jesuits Parsons and Creswell, as confessing that "in 
the beginning of her kingdom, she did deal somewhat more gently 
with Catholics ; none were then urged by her or pressed, either to 
her sect or to the denial of their faith. All things, indeed, did 
seem to proceed in a far milder course — no great complaints were 
heard of." And the Secular Priests for themselves state : — " For 
whilst Her Majesty and the state dealt with the Catholics as you 
have heard (which was full eleven years, no one Catholic being called 
in question ofh's life for his conscience all that time), consider with 
us how some of our profession proceeded with them." And they 
then set forth the plottings of the Jesuits in this country, which 
brought upon them the retribution they richly deserved. a They 
conclude by admitting that " these foreign Jesuitical practices had 
been the cause of all their troubles." Again I appeal to the 
testimony of the Roman Catholic historian Dodd, who asserts that 
"they [the Romanists] were entertained by her [the Queen] in the 
army, and now and then in the cabinet, till such times as the mis- 
behaviour of some particular persons drew a persecution upon the 
whole body." b And another Roman Catholic priest, Berington, on 
the same subject, bears the following testimony: — " This, then, I 
infer (and I have ample grounds for the inference), that, as none 
of the old clergy suffered, and none of the new, who roundly 
renounced the assumed prerogative of Papal despotism, it was not 
for any tenet of the Catholic faith that they were exjoosed to 
persecution." Bzovius, the Romish annalist and Papal champion, 

» Pp. 39, 59. I quote from Rev. Mr. Mendham's edition, 1831 . 
b Dodd's " Church History," part iv, art. iv. Tierney's edition, London, 
1839, vol. iii, p. 5. Tierney was a Romish priest. 
c Berington 's Introduc. to "Memoirs of Panzani," p. 34. Birmingham, 1793.. 



187 

was constrained to admit that there was not any that suffered in 
Queen Elizabeth's reign, except those who taught the dangerous 
doctrine that the Pope could depose kings. a Again the same 
Secular Priests bore testimony: — " If we at home, all of us, both 
priests and people, had possessed our souls in meekness and humility, 
honoured Her Majesty, borne with the infirmities of the State, 
suffered all things, and dealt as true Catholic priests, if all of us, 
we say, had thus done, most assuredly the State would have loved 
us, or at least borne with us. Where there is one Catholic, there 
would have been ten ; there had been no speeches amongst us of 
racks and torments, nor any cause to have used them, for none were 
ever vexed that way simply for that he was either a priest or Catholic, 
but because they ivere suspected to have had their hands in some oj 
the said most traitorous designmentsT b 

Such being the testimony of Romanists themselves as to 
Elizabeth's alleged penal laws, I propose briefly to consider the 
provocations which called them forth. These were deliberate acts 
of treason. " Some of us," wrote the Secular Priests, " have said 
many a time, when we have read and heard speeches of Her 
Majesty's supposed cruelty: — 'Why, my masters, what would you 
have her do, being resolved as she is in matters of religion, except 
she should willingly cast off the cares, not only of her state and 
kingdom, but of her life also and princely estimation V Yea ! there 
have been amongst us, of our own calling, who have likewise said, 
' that they themselves, knowing what they do know — how, under 
pretence of religion, the life of Her Majesty and the subversion of 
the kingdom is aimed at — if they had been of Her Highness' 
Council, they would have given their consent for the making of 
very strait and rigorous laws, to the better suppression and pre- 
venting of all such Jesuitical and wicked designments.'" c The 
Eomish priest Clark confessed that the Queen's laws ought not 
to be defamed as tyrannical, " seeing that their [the Jesuits'] 
treasonable actions were the occasion of them." d When such is the 
opinion of Romanists themselves, it is too late for Romanists of 
the present day to put forth a Cobbett to delude us into the sup- 
s' Bzovius' « De Rom. Pont.," cap. xlvi, p. 621. Edit. Antwerp, 1601. 
i) Watson's " Considerations," p. 72. Mendliam's edition, 1831. 
c Watson's " Considerations," pp. 67, 6S. Mendham's edition > 1831. 
a See Foulis' " History of Romish Treasons," p. 420. Edit. 1671. 



188 

position that these Jesuit plotters were innocent martyrs for the 
cause of the ancient religion. 

In the year 1560 a proclamation was issued against Anabaptists, 
who had begun to spread their poisonous doctrines, and committed 
sacrilegious depredations. a How did the Jesuits avail themselves 
of the circumstance? "Priests travelled about the country in 
various guises to keep alive a flame which the practice of outward 
conformity was calculated to extinguish. Many of these itinerant 
priests assumed the character of Protestant preachers ; and it has 
been said with some truth, though not probably without exaggera- 
tion, that under the direction of their crafty court they fomented 
the divisions then springing up, and mingled zuith the Anabaptists 
and other sectaries, in hope both of exciting dislike to the estab- 
lishment and of instilling their own tenets, slightly disguised, into 
the minds of the unwary enthusiast;" and Thomas Heath, the 
son of a bishop, was seized, a.d. 1570, "well primed with Ana- 
baptist tracts for circulation." b 

On the 6th May, 1566, in the first year of his Pontificate, 
Pius V. issued a bull, whereby he "anathematised all heretics 
lying, trading or travelling in or amongst the same wheresoever 
dispersed over the face of the whole earth;" and by the same bull 
he " further willed and authorised" " the wise and learned of our 
ecclesiastics, expert in divine science, to labour, endeavour, and 
devise all manner of devices to be devised, to abate, assuage and 
confound these heresies, repugnant to our sacred laws, that thereby 
these heretics may be either recalled to confess their error and 
acknowledge our jurisdiction of the See of Rome, or that a total 
infamy may be brought upon them and their posterities by a 
perpetual discord and contention among themselves, by which means 
they may either speedily perish by God's wrath or continue in 
eternal difference to the reproach of Jew, Turk, Heathen, nay, 
to the Devils themselves." This was indeed encouraging to 
Elizabeth! "Who then," exclaim the Secular Priests, ." gave 
the cause that you were troubled? When her Majesty used you 

a See Camden's " Annals of Queen Elizabeth," p. 35. London, 1635. 

b Hallam's " Constitutional History," cap. iii, vol. i, pp. 121, 122, note. 
Edit. 1846. 

c The authority and circumstances of the issue of this bull are given in 
Mendham's " Life of Pius Y„" pp. 122, 123. London, 1832. 



189 

kindly how treacherously was she dealt with by you? Did not 
Pius Quintus practise her Majesty's subversion? — she (good lady) 
' never dreaming of any such mischief." a 

Catena (the celebrated secretary to Cardinal Alessandro, and to 
the Congregation of Bishops and to the Sacred Consulta), in his 
life of Pope Pius V., informs us that for many years during the 
earlier part of Elizabeth's reign the Pope had an agent in this 
country named Roberto Ridolfi, who was sent here " living in the 
kingdom under pretence of trading as a merchant that he might 
excite the inhabitants to a rebellion for the destruction of Eliza- 
beth." b Gabutius records as a fact that the design of the Pope was 
to take away her life if she would not become a Romanist. The 
Secular Priests say that he was sent by the Pope "to solicit a 
rebellion under colour of merchandise." c Hume describes the 
danger in which Elizabeth continually lived : — " The assassination 
of heretical sovereigns, and of that princess [Elizabeth] in par- 
ticular, was represented as the most meritorious of all enterprises, 
and that they thought that whoever perished in such pious attempts 
enjoyed, without dispute, the glorious and never-fading crown of 
martyrdom ;" d hence the treasonous conspiracies and murderous 
designs of Savage, Ballard, Babington, Morgan, and others. 

In order of date I ought to have mentioned the Statute 
5 Eliz., c. i., a.d. 1563, as one of the alleged penal laws of the 
country. It was enacted " for the preservation of the Queen, and 
to avoid such hurts and perils as have before time befallen by 
means of the jurisdiction and power of the See of Rome unjustly 
claimed and usurped within this realm." The offender was to be 
tried in a constitutional manner in the Queen's Bench. The 
offence contemplated is " advisedly and wittingly offending con- 
trary to law," and was enacted for " the assurance of the Queen's 
royal power over all estates and subjects within her dominions." 

Mary, Queen of Scots, and her claim to the throne of England, 
were made a plea upon which the Pope and his adherents rested 
their justification for attempting to dethrone Elizabeth and destroy 

a Watson's " Considerations," &c, p. 42. Mendham's edition, 1831. 
b Catena, p. 102. In Eoma, 1586 ; and see G-abutius' " Vit. Pii.," lib. iii, 
c. ix. Antwerp, 1640. 

* Watson's "Considerations," as above, p. 42. 

d " History of England," cap. xli, an. 1584, vol. iv, p. 33. London. 1S51. 



190 

her kingdom. The master spirit sat at Rome. " The coals," said 
Jewell, " were kindled here, but the bellows were there, and there 
he sat — he that blew the fire. We saw the puppets, but the juggler 
that drew the strings kept himself close." a 

In 1569 the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland were 
incited by one Nicholas Morton, a priest, sent by the Pope himself 
to England for the express purpose of exciting a rebellion to raise 
Mary Queen of Scots to the throne of England and restore the 
authority of the Pope and religion as it existed in the previous 
reign. The Pope himself addressed a letter to the two, dated 
from Rome, 20th February, 1570, b urging them to rebellion, " to 
deliver yourselves and that kingdom from the basest servitude of 
a woman's lust, and to recover them to the primitive obedience of 
this Holy Roman See ;" and he added, " that it may be effected, 
we will not only assist by performing the offices you desire with 
Christian princes, but by immediately granting the sum of money 
which, according to our power, and agreeably to your request, we 
are able to supply." In March, 1570, the Pope wrote to the King 
of Spain, urging him to take part in the general crusade against 
England, and to depose Elizabeth, " this same most deceptious 
woman, or rather disgrace of the Christian Republic." This was 
followed by the bull of " damnation and excommunication of 
Elizabeth, Queen of England, and her adherents," but which for- 
tunately was issued when the Northern rebellion had been already 
suppressed. This bull bore date," 5th of the Kalends of March, 

* I shall not enter on the question of the Queen of Scots. Her conduct 
and Elizabeth's measures against her were purely political, and had nothing 
whatever, in fact, to do with the Reformation, otherwise than that her case 
was made a pretext for rebellions and treasons. It has been truly observed, 
that this portion of our history has been so deformed by controversy, that 
there is scarcely a single event of any importance which has not been 
questioned or distorted to suit the peculiar views of the antagonists or 
defenders of the Queens respectively. The reader, however, may profitably 
consult Mr. Froude's most able exposition of the history of this unfortunate 
Princess in his " History of England," reign of Elizabeth. But that such 
an outcry should be raised against Elizabeth for the execution of the Queen 
of Scots, and her sister's execution of Lady Jane Grey be passed with 
scarcely a censure, is manifestly unjust. 

b See Goubau, lib. iv, ep. x, p. 290, et seq. Antwerp, 1640. The original 
and translation are given in Mendham's " Life of Pius V.," pp. 128 and 
254. London, 1832. 



191 

1570." The bull anathematised and excommunicated Elizabeth as 
a slave of impiety, a heretic, and a favourer of heretics. He deposed 
her, and deprived her of her alleged pretended right to the crown 
of England. He absolved all her subjects from their allegiance, 
and all others from their oaths, and that for ever. He positively 
enjoined disobedience under penalty of the same anathema and 
excommunication as were denounced against the Queen, and placed 
the whole land under his curse and interdict. a One John Felton 
was caught in the act of fixing up this bull on the Bishop of London's 
palace gates, and was hanged as a traitor. This was the first 
" Popish martyr," but it was not until twelve years of this reign had 
passed without an execution. This Felton, on his trial, admitted 
the action, defended it as meritorious, and refused to beg the 
Queen's pardon. He was executed as a traitor. At the same 
time Philip, King of Spain, at the Pope's instance, determined to 
send the Duke of Alva into England with all his forces, then in 
the Low Countries, to assist the Duke of Norfolk, whom the 
Pope and Philip had appointed to be at the head of the rebellion to 
free the Queen of Scots, and " disinherit Elizabeth." b With all 
this provocation, would any monarch sit quietly, look on, and do 
nothing to counteract these unchristian and diabolical proceedings 
of the enraged Papists, who were living, in fact, out of the kingdom? 
The Secular Priests within the kingdom exclaimed, after enu- 
merating these facts, " Are all these things true, and were they 
not then in hand whilst her Majesty dealt so mercifully with you ? 
How can you excuse these designments, so unchristian, so un- 
priestly, so treacherous, and, therefore, so unprincelike ?" c The 
Queen, however, allowed more than a year to pass before she called 
her Parliament together to claim their protection. In April, 1571, 
Parliament passed two Acts ; by the first (13 Eliz. c.l) it was made 
treason to deny the Queen's title, or to call her a schismatic, a 
heretic, or an infidel. The second (1 3 Eliz. c. 2) was directed against 
those who should put in force in this country any " bulls, writings, or 
instruments and other superstitious things from the See of Rome.'* 

a Magnum. Bull. Eom. Lugd. 1655, torn, ii, p. 303. Mr. Mendham, in his 
t' Life of Pius V.," has given the original text and translation. London, 
1832, pp. 141 & 257. 

b Watson's ' Considerations," pp. 43, 46. Mendham's reprint, 1831. 

c Ibid, p. 43. 



192 

These superstitious things were " crosses, pictures, beads, and 
articles called Agnus Dei," which latter, consecrated by the Bishop 
of Rome, were used as talismans, and were supposed to enchant 
and bewitch the people's affections from their allegiance to their 
sovereign. Then followed, say the Secular Priests, great restraints 
" of the prisoners ; but none were put to death upon that occasion, 
the sword being then only drawn against such Catholics as had risen 
up actually into open rebellion, wherein we cannot see what her 
Majesty did that any prince in Christendom in such a case would 
not have done." Of these two Acts the Secular Priests thus 
further record their opinion : — " We cannot but confess as reasonable 
men that the state had great cause to make some laws against us, 
except they should have showed themselves careless for the con- 
tinuance of it. But, to the law ; as any would have it never so 
extreme ; yet, surely, it must be granted that the occasion of it 
was most outrageous, and, likewise, that the execution of it was 
not so tragical as many since have written and reported it. For 
whatsoever was done against us, either upon the pretence of that 
law or of any other, would never, we think, have been attempted 
had not divers other preposterous occasions (besides the causes of 
that law) daily fallen out amongst us, which procured matters to 
be urged more severely against us." a 

There is nothing in these Acts which went beyond those passed 
by Edward III., more than two hundred years before, in order to 
suppress Papal encroachments. 

In 1569 — 1571 the Jesuits Sanders, Parsons, and Stukely set 
on foot plots for creating a rebellion in Ireland under the auspices 
of the Pope. b Stukely found such credit with the Pope (Gregory 
XIV., Pius V. being then dead,) that he flattered that Pontiff by 
holding out the hope of making his son (or nephew) Baron Com- 
pagno, King of Ireland. c A seminary was opened at Eheims for 
the education of Jesuit missionaries with the avowed object of 
sowing discords and treasons in England and Ireland, led on by the 
two distinguished Jesuits Parsons and Campion. In 1572 Sanders' 
book appeared, wherein he publicly justified the dethronement of 
the Queen ; and in the same year occurred the barbarous massacre 

a Watson's " Considerations," pp. 44, 45. b Ibid, p. 46. 

c Hume's "History of England," ch. xliv. Camden's "Annals," p. 203. 
London, 1635. 



193 

oi' the Protestants in France. " The head of Coligni [the Huguenot 
leader], after haying been presented to the King of France and 
the Queen Mother, was embalmed and sent to Rome, that the 
Cardinal of Lorraine and the Pope might have the satisfaction of 
beholding it. Public rejoicings were made at Rome for this 
accursed eyent. A solemn service of thanksgiving was performed, 
at which the Pope himself assisted ; and, as Bonani says, " that 
the slaughter was not executed without the help of God and the 
divine counsel Gregory inculcated in a medal, struck on the occasion 
to commemorate the most enormous crime with which the annals 
of the Christian world had ever been stained, and a painting was 
executed by order of the Pope to commemorate the event." a This 
was not very re-assuring ! By the machinations of the Guises, a 
plot to entrap the Queen was treacherously conceived. She was 
solicited to visit the Queen Mother of France at Jersey, which met 
the timely rebuke of Lord Burleigh. 5 Mr. Cobbett has the bare- 
faced assurance to assert that, to this time, 1572, the number of 
Elizabeth's victims was twice as great as those who suffered 
by the massacres of France, known as the St. Bartholomew 
Massacres ! c He asserts that the Queen was " daily racking people 
nearly to death to get secrets from them ; she was daily ripping 
the bowels out of women as well as men for saying or hearing 
mass " at this very period. d But he prudently withheld the citation 
of any single example. The statements are simply untrue ! 

According to Dodd, the Romish historian, it was six years before 
any one suffered under this reign ; the first three being Mayne in 
1577, and Nelson and Sherwood in 1578. e These men were 
emissary priests sent into this country for the purpose of alluring 
the people from their allegiance and fomenting sedition; "they 
taught that the Queen was a schismatic and a heretic, and therefore 
to be deposed ; for this they suffered death," f — in fact, as traitors. 

a Southey's " Book of the Church," ch. xy, 4th edition, p. 393. Strype's 
"Annals," vol. ii, pt. 1, b. i, ch. xyiii, p. 242. Oxford edition, 1821. As to 
the medal, this is recorded by the Eornan nnmismician Bonani, " Numism. 
Pontiff. Eom. a temp. Mart. V. & Eom." 1699, torn, i, p. 336. 

b See Camden's " Annals— Elizabeth," b. ii, p. 162. London, 1635. 

c 293. d 293. 

e Tierney's edition of Dodd's " Church History," vol. iii, p. 15. London, 
1839. 

f Camden's "Annals— Elizabeth," p. 216, as above. 

o 



194 

Mr. Berington, a Romish priest, in his Introduction to the 
" Memoir of Gregoria Panzani," a states, that " after the promulga- 
tion of the bull, six queries were generally proposed to the priests 
who were arraigned," — not, be it observed, proposed to priests 
indiscriminately, but to those who had been arrested in the actual 
commission of treasonable acts. — " They regarded the import of 
that bull, the deposition of the Queen as pronounced in it, and 
what should be the conduct of good subjects in reference to 
both. Few answered, I am sorry to observe, as became loyal 
Englishmen and faithful citizens. They seemed rather to consider 
themselves as the subjects of a foreign master whose sovereignty 
was paramount and whose will was supreme." And this, too, is the 
testimony of a Roman priest ! 

It was during the rebellion in Ireland, fostered by the emissaries 
from the Romish seminaries, that Gregory XIII. renewed the Bull 
of Excommunication against Elizabeth in the same terms as the 
previous bull of Pius V. It is dated loth May, 1580, and in 
addition it granted " the same plenary indulgence and remission 
of all sins which those obtained who warred against the Turks and 
for the recovery of the Holy Land." b The Pope, in fact, declared 
another crusade, or " Holy War," against England. He appealed 
to the religious bigotry of the Romish subjects of the Queen, 
holding out the delusive hope of eternal salvation by the remission 
of all sins to all who should become rebels and regicides; and, 
forsooth, they were first to confess and express contrition ! — confess 
that they were about to rebel, to become regicides ! This was 
nothing new in the Romish system. No sane man will believe 
Mr. Cobbett that he was sincere when he defended such nefarious 
principles. However pure, according to their estimation, the 
motives may have been, the means adopted were diabolical. Well 
might the more orderly of. the Roman priesthood exclaim, " that 
the proceedings held against her Majesty well weighed, these 
foreign Jesuitical practices have been the cause of all our troubles." c 
An army of Italians and Spaniards sent by the Bishop of Rome 
and the King of Spain, landed in Ireland under colour of restoring 

a P. 34, note. Birmingham, 1793. British Museum mark, 1126, h. 23. 
The edition of 1813 is the same as this, with a new title page. 
b See Wilkins's " Concil. Brit.," vol. iv, p. 296. London, 1737. 
c Watson's " Considerations," p. 59. Mendham's reprint, 1831. 



195 

the Romish religion, but, in fact, -with the purpose of raising a 
rebellion.* The Pope also sent a large sum of money through 
Sanders, his Nuncio. These proceedings in Ireland called forth a 
proclamation, dated 10th January, 1581, "for the recall of all 
English students from foreign seminaries, and for the banishment 
of all Jesuits and seminary priests from England." b 

A few words as to these foreign seminaries. The most san- 
guinary and revolutionary doctrines were taught in them. Camden 
informs us : — " Out of these seminaries first a few young men, and 
then more as they grew up, entering over-hastily into holy orders, 
and being instructed in such principles of doctrine as these, were 
sent forth into divers parts of England and Ireland to administer 
(as they pretended) the sacraments of the Eomish religion, and to 
preach. But the Queen and her Counsell found that they were 
sent underhand to withdraw the subjects from their allegiance and 
obedience due to their Prince, to bind them by reconciliation to 
perform the Pope's commandments, to raise intestine rebellions 
under the seale of confession, and flatly to execute the sentence of 
Pius Quintus against the Queene : to the end that way might be 
made for the Pope and the Spaniard, who had of late intended the 
conquest of England." c 

And the Reverend Mr. Berington, the same Romish priest I 
have before quoted, thus expresses his opinion, when recording the 
establishment of these foreign seminaries by disaffected English 
priests who had been obliged to leave the country by reason of 
their treasonable proceedings : — " This secession I lament, because, 
had these men remained at home, patient of present evils and sub- 
mission as far as might be to the laws, had they continued the 
practice of their religion in retirement, and distributed, without 
clamour, instruction to those that claimed it, the rigour of the 
legislature would soon have relaxed, no jealousy would have been 
excited, and no penal statutes, we may now pronounce, would have 
entailed misfortunes upon them and their successors.'" Speaking of 
these seminaries abroad from which the persecuted missionaries 
had emigrated, Mr. Berington adds : — " It will not be denied that, 

a Camden's "Annals," b. ii, p. 213. 

i> See Dodd's " Church History," Tierney's edition, vol. iii, app. No. v. Also 
Strype's "Annals of Elizabeth," vol. iii, pt. i, b. i, ch. iv, p. 57. Oxford, 1824. 
c Camden's "Annals," b. ii, p. 21G, as above. 

o 2 



196 

from the operation of various causes, our foreign houses soon 
imbibed an ultramontane spirit, which, as it nattered — and by 
flattering secured the favour of Eome, so did it offend — and by 
offending draw down upon our heads the vengeance of the British 
Government. The doctrine of deposing princes and disposing of 
their crowns, with other concomitant maxims of a like tendency, 
were the pabulum on which that ultramontane spirit fed ; and we 
may too easily discover in reading their works, that the divines of 
our English seminaries had, with a culpable inattention to circum- 
stances, espoused those dangerous tenets. Their direct application 
to the Princess on the throne, and to many events of her reign, 
proved too evidently that they were not tenets of barren speculation, 
calculated for the exercise of school disputation only ; and if they 
rendered the men who maintained them obnoxious to the state, 
exposing them to prosecution and imprisonment, and sometimes 
even to death, it should not excite our wonder." a It was in 1581 
that the arch- Jesuit Campian, a hopeful pupil of one of the foreign 
seminaries, who, to the last, proclaimed and maintained his 
treasonable language against the Queen, was executed. " Campian, 
being asked first whether Queen Elizabeth was a lawful Queen, 
refused to answer ; then whether he would take part with the Queen 
or the Pope, if the latter should send forces against the Queen, he 
openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand 
for the Pope. Afterwards, some others also were examined for the 
same causes, whereas, in full ten years after the rebellion there 
had been no more than five Papists put to death." b Now Campian 
and the other religious enthusiasts had a perfect right to maintain 
their own opinions, even as Englishmen, in favour of the Pope ; 
but holding such opinions, their duty was to hold their peace, if 
they desired to remain in the country, or to leave it, if they pre- 
ferred the rule of the Pope. They knew the penalty that awaited 
their treasonable acts. Mr. Cobbett has nothing to say in Campian's 
defence. The open insolence of these Jesuit missionaries was, indeed, 
so gross, that some of them did not even dissemble the fact that they 
had returned to England for no other purpose than to absolve all 
Her Majesty's subjects from their allegiance and obedience, giving 

a Berington's " Memoirs of Panzani." Introduction, pp. 20, 23, 24. 
Birmingham, 1793. 
b Camden's " Elizabeth," b. iii, p. 240. London, 1635. 






197 

absolution under the seal of confession, acting in all this under the 
direct authority of the Pope ; a " telling us," say the Secular Priests, 
u many fair tales, and alluring us with sundry great promises, all 
of them mere illusions, falsehoods, and most monstrous instigations 
and jugglings." b This called forth the Act of 23 Eliz. c. i., " An 
Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's subjects to their due obedience." 
It declared those to be guilty of high treason -whosoever should 
persuade subjects from their obedience to their Queen and from 
the religion established in England, and should propose to reconcile 
them to the Church of Rome. A fine was imposed on those who 
should absent themselves from the parish church, and fines and 
imprisonments were imposed for hearing and saying mass. Ab- 
stractedly it would appear that the remedy was most severe, and 
fell hardly on innocent persons, and the Act is dwelt upon as an 
isolated and unprovoked enactment. But even the administration 
of this law was tempered with mercy. The French historian Rapin 
testifies that, " as long as the Court imagined that these men only 
administered the sacraments in private to those of their religion, 
no notice seemed to be taken of it." c The urgency and necessity 
of the times required severe measures. Loyal subjects knew this 
necessity, and with few exceptions it was only resisted and evaded 
by the traitorous and disloyal. 

And now let us turn to Mr. Cobbett's version. In two short 
sentences/ 1 he embodies the history of these twenty-three years of 
Elizabeth's reign ! He first mentions the Act of i. Eliz. c. i., 
wherein he untruly represents that " all persons were compelled to 
take the oath of supremacy on pain of death; thus," he adds, " was 
a very large part of her people at once condemned to death for 
adhering to the religion of their fathers." And from this first 
year of her reign he springs with one bound to the twenty-third, 
without one single reference to or a hint at all the intervening 
plottings, conspiracies and rebellions above enumerated, and without 
giving any dates to guide the reader ; as if the two enactments 
folio wed one on the other. He adds: — " Besides this act of monstrous 
barbarity p. e. the Act of Supremacy] it was made high treason in 

a Camden's " Elizabeth," b. iii, p. 241. London, 1G35. 

* Watson's " Considerations," p. 57. Mendham's reprint, 1831. 

c Tindal's Rapin. vol. ix, p. 620. London, 1729. 

<* 207, 268. 



198 

a priest to say mass ; it was made high treason in a priest to 
come into the kingdom from abroad ; it was high treason to 
harbour or to relieve a priest. And on these grounds, and others 
of a like nature, hundreds upon hundreds were butchered in the most 
inhuman manner, being first hung up, then cut down alive, their 
bowels ripped up, and their bodies chopped into quarters ; and this, 
I again beg you, sensible and just Englishmen, to observe, only 
because the unfortunate 2~)ersons were too virtuous and sincere to 
apostatize from their faith, which this Queen had at her coronation, 
in her coronation oath, solemnly sworn to adhere to and defend."' 
Was there ever such a perversion of truth ? Is it not a mockery 
to call such a book as Mr. Cobbett's a History of the Reformation? 
The country being overrun by these incendiaries, the Jesuits from 
abroad, it was only by stringent measures that they could be dis- 
covered. But let me again repeat the words of the priests 
themselves : — " These foreign Jesuitical practices have been the 
cause of all our trouble." Mr. Cobbett has placed it wholly out of 
our power to convict him of precise perversions. He has not 
named one single instance of alleged persecution for religion ; his 
charges are all clothed in generalities. He might, however, have 
quoted the letter he himself has preserved in his own edition of 
" The State Trials," a found on the Romanist Parry, who was 
executed for a design to murder the Queen. This letter, actually 
found on his person, was from Cardinal Como, encouraging him to 
proceed in his intention, and informing him that it had the entire 
approbation of the Pope, who granted him " plenary indulgence 
and remission of all his sins, according to his request." Was this 
execution an " act of monstrous barbarity ? " — was Parry one of 
the " unfortunate persons too virtuous and too sincere to aposta- 
tize ? " — and was he "condemned to death for adhering to the 
religion of his fathers ? " 

Then, again, why has not Mr. Cobbett mentioned the conspiracy 
of Somerville and Arden in 1583, whose avowed object was the 
assassination of the Queen ? b And has he nothing to record of 

a An. 1534, No. 60, vol. i, col. 1105. Mr. Cobbett gives the original text, 
the translation is given by Strype, in his "Annals of Elizabeth," vol. iii, 
pt. i, b. i, c. xxi, p. 3G1. Oxford, 1824. See Camden's "Annals," b. iii,. 
p. 274. London, 1635. 

b Camden, b. iii, p. 257. as above. 



199 

Throgmorton's conspiracy to betray his country to the enemy ? B 
— or of the Jesuit Campion's book, wherein he " exhorted the 
Queen's women to commit the like against the Queen as Judith 
had done with commendation, against Holofernes ?" b My readers 
must bear in mind that we are now at the period when the alleged 
cruelties perpetrated by this "ferocious Protestant Apostate Eliza- 
beth," with whose butcheries and other cruelties the Massacre of 
St. Bartholomew was nothing in comparison — a mere nothing, were 
at their highest pitch according to Mr. Cobbett. Well ! what was 
the conduct of the people of England in regard to these traitorous 
proceedings, these attempts on the life of their Queen, in the midst 
of these alleged rippings and butcheries ? The nation became so 
alarmed and excited that they formed associations, " the purport 
of which was to defend the Queen, to revenge her death or any 
injury that might be committed against her, and to exclude from 
the throne all claimants, what title soever they might possess, by 
whose suggestion, or for whose behoof, any violence should be 
offered to Her Majesty ;" c and so imminent was the danger con- 
sidered that Parliament confirmed the acts of this association; and 
further it was deemed expedient " for the greater security, that a 
Council of Eegency, in case of the Queen's violent death, should be 
appointed to govern the kingdom, to settle the succession, and to 
take vengeance for that act of treason " (27 Eliz. c. i.) ; and yet at 
this very time Mr. Cobbett asserts that " such were the peculiar cir- 
cumstances of the times that this wicked woman escaped, not only for 
the present but throughout her long reign, that general hatred from 
her subjects which her character and deeds so ivell merited." d It 
being universally admitted that the Jesuits, who have ever been 
found the most active in conspiracies and rebellions, were the 
instigators of these treasons, we are not surprised that an Act was 
passed " against Jesuits, seminary priests, and other such like 
disobedient persons." e The preamble of this Act carries its own 
justification: — 

a Camden's " Annals — Elizabeth," p. 2G4. London, 1635. 

b Ibid, p. 2G2. Also Strype's "Annals," vol. iii, pt. i, b. i, c. xx, p. 358 : 
c. xxiii, p. 407. Oxford, 1824. 

c Camden's "Annals— Elizabeth," b. iii, p. 275, as above. Also Hume's 
" History of England," ch. xli, vol. iv, p. 25. Edition 1S30. 

a 321. 

e 27 Eliz., c. ii. 



200 

11 Wliereas divers persons, called or professed Jesuits, &c. * * * 
daily do come and are sent into this realm of England * * * of 
purpose * * * not only to withdraw her Highness' subjects from 
their due obedience to her Majesty, but also to stir up and move 
seditious rebellion and open hostility within the same her Highness' 
realms and dominions, to the great endangering of the safety of 
her most most royal person, and to the utter ruin, desolation, and 
overthrow of the whole realm, if the same be not the sooner, by 
some good means, foreseen and prevented ; for reformation whereof 
be it ordained," &c. 

The following abstract of the provisions of this Act is given by 
Hume : — 

" It was ordained that they should depart the kingdom within 
forty days [of the ensuing feast of St. John the Baptist] ; that 
those who should remain beyond that time, or should afterwards 
return, should be guilty of treason ; that those who harboured or 
relieved them should be guilty of felony; that those who were 
educated in seminaries, if they returned not in six months after 
notice given, and submitting not themselves to the Queen before a 
bishop or two justices, should be guilty of treason ; and that if 
any, so submitting themselves, should within ten years approach 
the Court, or come within ten miles of it, their submission shall be 
void." a 

Such was the state of exasperation against these foreign con- 
spiracies, that the law was enforced in some cases with severity. 
But Mr. Cobbett does Elizabeth great injustice by stigmatising her 
individually, on this account, with ferocity or malignity. We have 
it happily recorded that she expressed great offence at the severity 
with which the magistracy and judges treated the accused : — 
" Some of those concerned in the cognizance of these matters 
thought it necessary to publish a paper "in their vindication. In 
this defence they protested the priests had milder usage than they 
deserved ; that they were never put to the question on the score of 
their religion, but only when they lay under violent presumptions 
of practising against their country and prince upon vehement 
suspicion. * * * But the Queen not being satisfied, commanded 
the executioners to forbear tortures, and the judges to refrain 
putting to death; and not long after, seventy priests, some of 

a " History of England," p. 26, vol. iv. Edition, London, 1830. 



201 

whom were condemned, and all of them under prosecution, were 
set at liberty and banished." a 

In 1586 another serious conspiracy against the Queen's life was 
discovered, headed by Babington, which also was hatched at the 
foreign English seminaries. Those concerned in it taught that the 
bull of Pius V. against Elizabeth emanated from the Holy Ghost; 
that it was meritorious to take away the life of heretical princes , 
and that to perish in the attempt was martyrdom. b Babington' s 
letter to the Scottish Mary disclosed the scheme for liberating her, 
and " dispatch Elizabeth, the usurper of her rights." c These 
wretches on their apprehension betrayed each other, and disclosed 
the whole conspiracy. The fury of the people was beyond bounds. 
The traitors were hanged and quartered and disembowelled — but 
not for holding the religion of their fathers. Mr. Cobbett says they 
died for their religion ! To come from foreign parts and deliberately 
to enter into a conspiracy to murder the Queen, and on being de- 
tected, to be hanged, was to die for religion ! Mr. Cobbett would 
perpetuate the libel that the crime of regicide was a doctrine of the 
Roman Church, if only the prince were a heretic ! — and Romanists 
of the present day actually endorse this opinion by the publication 
and circulation of his book ! Of course Mr. Cobbett keeps out 
of view the " cause y " and only gives the " result ;" and to make his 
case good he is compelled to assert that all these men suffered for 
the innocent cause of adhering and acting up to their religion ! 
It was of these very persons the Secular Priests said — " Might not 
the Queen justly repute them for traitors and deal with them 
accordingly ? Sure we are that no king or prince in Christen- 
dom would like, or tolerate, any such subjects within their 
dominions, if possible they could be rid of them." d I am not 
justifying the modes adopted of putting them to death; far from it. 
It was barbarous, most barbarous. But why is the Queen made 
responsible for the act ? The people were worked up to a frenzy, 

a Collier's " Eccl. Hist.," p. ii, b. vii, p. 591, folio edition. Camden's 
•"Annals," b. iii, p. 262. London, 1635. See also Strype's "Annals," 
vol. iii, b. i, c. xvii, p! 296. Oxford, 1824. 

b Camden's " Annals," b. iii, p. 301, as above. 

c See " State Trials," vol. i, No. 62, col. 1137. Dodd's " Church History," 
Ticrncy's edition, 1839, vol. iii, p. 23. 

d Watson's "Considerations," p. 53. Reprint, 1831. 



202 

and they took a savage vengeance on traitors, who would have 
murdered their Queen could they have had the opportunity. Mr. 
Cobbett writes as if cruelty was now new to the Christian world 
and practised alone by the Reformers. He knew better; and the 
history of Popish persecutions, which I propose to notice in another 
part of this work, will fill in the hiatus in his history. Some of 
these men had pledged their faith and their lives to assassinate the 
Queen ; they were convicted on the clearest testimony ; they were 
treated as traitors, that is — hung, disembowelled and quartered. 
Unless it be maintained that to murder an heretical Queen is a point 
of religion, these men, forming only a small portion of those who 
were guilty, thus suffered as traitors ; but what was that death com- 
pared to being burnt alive at a stake by a slow fire, as were Cranmer, 
Ridley, Latimer, and an army of martyrs, for the simple crime of 
refusing to believe the theological monstrosity of transubstantiation? 
Let it be proclaimed from the housetop : — Traitors and would-be 
regicides suffered death for their religion ! Mr. Cobbett says so r 
and Romanists endorse the theory by a publication of his opinions ! 
Again Mr. Cobbett is lavish in his expressions of indignation 
that some French Huguenots should " put Havre and Dieppe into 
the hands of the English" — "an infamous and treacherous pro- 
ceeding " — " to sell their country under the blasphemous plea of a 
love of the Gospel ;" a but he has not one word of condemnation for 
Sir William Stanley and William Yorke, both Papists, who, in 1587, 
treacherously surrendered to the Spaniards a fort near Zutphen,. 
in Gelderland, the charge of which had been entrusted to Yorke 
as governor. Sir William induced the officers and soldiers of his 
regiment, 1,800 in number, to desert with him, on the plea " that 
his conscience did not allow him to fight for heretics ; he sent for 
priests to instruct his regiment, giving out that this should be a 
seminary regiment of soldiers, which should defend the Romish 
religion by arms as the seminary priests did by writing.'* 
Cardinal Allen aided and abetted this design ; he sent priests with 
written instructions, founded on the bull of Pius V., "both com- 
mending the treason, and exciting others to the like perfidiousness,. 
as if they were not bound to serve nor obey an excommunicate 
Queen." b " He betrayed the trust committed to him by the Earl of 

a 275. 

b Camden's "Annals/' b. iii, p. 353. London, 1G35, 



Leicester, who had given him the honourable title of knighthood." a 
The same Secular Priests, the loyal Romanists of England, said 
- that this act of disloyalty " greatly prejudiced them that were 
Catholics at home, so was the defence of that disloyalty by that 
worthy man [Cardinal Allen], but by persuasions, as they thought, of 
Parsons, greatly disliked of many both wise and learned." They 
complained that Cardinal Allen sided with the " lewd Jesuits " in 
teaching that, "in all wars which may happen for religion, every 
Catholic man is bound in conscience to employ his person and forces 
by the Pope's direction, viz., how far, when and where, either at 
home or abroad, he may and must break with his temporal 
sovereign." b This, then, is the confession made by Roman priests 
themselves of the clay ; so that the present Pope — as Pius V. and 
Gregory XIII. and Clement VIII. had done — has only to declare 
a crusade against any prince, and, according to Jesuit principles 
and this theory, in which Cardinal Allen agreed, and on which 
Sir William Stanley and the troops under him actually acted, 
every Romanist, " for conscience sake," is bound to turn traitor 
to his queen and country. This is a natural and inevitable con- 
clusion, for is not Semper Eaclem the motto of Rome ! Is this 
the religion Mr. Cobbett would wish to have brought back into 
this country? — and of which he appears as the hired advocate. 
Is this the religion Romanists of the present day would desire to 
encourage by the circulation of this so-called History ? But there 
were in those days, as there are at the present time, honest and 
conscientious Romanists, for mark the protest of the Secular Priests. 
After minutely recounting the series of other traitorous designs 
to which I have only in part referred, they make the following 
comments: — "These things [?'. e., all these treasonable acts] we 
would not have touched had they not been known in effect to this 
part of the world, and that we thought it our duties to show our 
own dislike of them, and to clear Her Majesty (so far as we may) 
from such imputation of more than barbarous cruelty towards us 
as the Jesuits in their writings have cast by heaps upon her, they 
themselves (as we still think in our consciences and before God) 
having been from time to time the very causes of all the calamities 

a Watson's "Considerations," p. 55. Reprint, 1831. And Priest Bering 
ton's Introduction to the ' ; Life of Panzani," p. 52. Birmingham, 1703. 
b Watson's " Considerations,'' pp. 55, 5G, as above. 



204 

which any of us have endured in England since Her Majesty's reign, 
•which we do not write simply to excuse Her Highness, although 
we must confess w r e can be contented to endure much rather than 
to seek her dishonour, but for that we think few princes living, 
being persuaded in religion as Her Majesty is, and so provoked as 
she hath been, would have dealt more mildly with such their subjects 
(all circumstances considered) than she hath done with us." a 

The case of Sir William Stanley's treachery was the more 
serious to the country, as he had served the Queen " with singular 
fidelity and fortitude in the Irish war." b These treacheries, insti- 
gated by the " foreign influenced" Jesuits, called forth in this 
year, 1587, a more stringent Act, (29 Eliz. c. 6), "for the 
more speedy execution of the statute 23 Eliz. c. 1, entitled, ' An 
Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's subjects in their due 
obedience.' " 

It was in this year that the plot of the French Ambassador in 
England, L'Aubespine, to assassinate the Queen was discovered. 
He sought to bribe Stafford, the son of one of the Queen's maids 
of honor, but in which he failed, and then by " rich bribes " he 
sought to accomplish his purpose through his secretary Trappy. 
But an All-Gracious Providence was watching over Elizabeth; it 
was not the Papists' fault that the Queen did not come to a sudden 
and violent death. 

We now come to the eventful year 1588 rendered ever memor- 
able by the invasion of England by the Spaniards with their 
so-called " Invincible Armada." This, and the imprisonment and 
execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, are the only two historical 
incidents of this reign that Mr. Cobbett notices ; the rest is 
vituperative declamation. The invasion was an incident too 
important to pass over; he says : — " The dangers of England were 
really great ; but though these dangers had been brought upon it 
solely by Elizabeth's malignity, bad faith and perfidy, [Where is 
the proof?] England was still England to her people, and they 
unanimously rallied round her. On this occasion, and, indeed, on 
all others when love of country was brought to the test, the 
Catholics proved that no danger of oppression could make them 

a Watson's "Considerations," p. 53. Reprint, 1831. 
b See Camden's "Annals," b, iii ; p. 253. London, 1C35. 
c Ibid., p. 330. 



205 

forget their duty as citizens or as subjects. The intended invasion 
was prevented by a tremendous storm, which scattered and half 
destroyed the Spanish fleet, called the Ahmada, and, in all human 
probability, the invaders would not have succeeded even if no 
storm had arisen. But, at any rate, there was great danger; no 
one could be certain of the result; the Catholics, had they listened 
to their just resentment, might have greatly added to the clanger, 
and, therefore, their generous conduct merited some relaxation of 
the cruel treatment which they had hitherto endured under her 
iron sceptre. No such relaxation, however, took place ; they were 
still treated with every species of barbarous cruelty : subjected to 
an inquisition infinitely more severe than that of Spain ever had, 
or ever has been ; and, even on the bare suspicion of disaffection, 
imprisoned, racked, and not unfrequently put to death." 3 And 
this is all Mr. Cobbett thinks proper to say on this momentous 
subject. It was no fault of the Pope, or lack of energy and 
plottings of the Jesuits, that the Romish subjects held to their 
Queen. The event incontestibly proved that Her Majesty's subjects 
were peaceable and contented, and would have remained so but for 
the plottings of these "foreign-influenced Jesuit priests." b 

It has been attempted to be proved that this invasion was a 
political affair of Spain, in which Romanists and the Pope had no 
part, and Mr. Cobbett seeks to confirm that impression. Indeed, 
Dodd, the Romish Church historian, asserts that this invasion 
" was entirely the King of Spain's own project, wherein neither 
the English Catholics nor the See of Borne did any way concern 
themselves." c 

That the invasion was instigated by the Pope as a religious 
crusade there can be no doubt. d The event took place in July, 
1588. The expedition had been long in preparation. Sixtus V. 
was then Pope. He issued a bull wherein he renewed the sentence 
of his predecessors Pius V. and Gregory XIII., of the excom- 
munication and deposition of Elizabeth. He "published, in print, 

a 322, 323. 

b This expression I have borrowed from Dr. O'Connor, a Eornan priest, 
whose writings I shall have to quote when I come to the times of King 
James I., as I have done from the writings of the Secular Priests as testimony 
against the Jesuits in the reign of Elizabeth. 

c Tierney's edition, vol. iii, p. 28. Edition, London, 1839. 

«i See Camden's "Annals," b. iii, pp. 358, 350. London, 1G35. 



206 

a crusade against England and Ireland as against the Turks and 
Infidels, wherein out of the treasures of the Church he gave plenary 
indulgences to all that gave their assistance. Whereupon the 
Marquis of Burgawe, of the House of Austria, the Dukes of 
Pastrana, Amedeus of Savoy, Vespasian Gonzaga, John de 
Medices, and very many noblemen from all parts gave their names 
voluntarily to this enterprise." a Cardinal Allen accordingly 
issued—" An admonition to the nobility and people of England and 
Ireland concerning the present wars, made, for the execution of his 
Holiness's sentence, by the high and mighty King Catholic of 
Spain." — " Our said Holy Father, of his benignity and favour to the 
enterprise, out of the spiritual treasures of the Church committed 
to his custody and dispensation, granted most liberally to all such 
as should assist, concur, or help in anywise to the deposition and 
punishment of the above-named persons [the Queen and her 
abettors], and to the reformation of these two countries, plenary 
indulgence and pardon of all their sins, being duly penitent, contrite, 
and confessed, according to the law of God and the usual custom 
of Christian people." b 

This u declaration of the sentence and deposition of Elizabeth, 
the usurper and pretended Queen of England," is not obtained 
from Protestant sources, but is actually given under that title by 
Tierney, himself a Roman priest, in the Appendix to his edition of 
Priest Dodd's " History." The declaration was for the most part 
an abridgement of an address which the Pope himself had com- 
manded Cardinal Allen to prepare for distribution among the 
people on the arrival of the Spanish Armada. Mr. Tierney gives 
the following outline of this performance : — c 

" This publication, the most offensive, perhaps, of the many 
offensive libels sent forth by the party to which Allen had attached 
himself, was printed at Antwerp, and, in a tone of the most 
scurrilous invective, denounced the character and conduct of the 

a Camden's " Annals," p. 361. London, 1635. 

b Cardinal Allen's " Declaration of the Sentence and Deposition of 
Elizabeth, the Usurper and Pretended Queen of England," given by Mr. 
Tierney in Appendix to Dodd's " History," vol. iii, No. xii. London, 1839. 

c I may mention here that I have received much valuable assistance in 
this part of my compilation of facts and documents from the Rev. Mr. 
Scudamore's valuable and able work, entitled " Letters to a Seceder from 
the Church of England to the Communion of Rome." London, 1851. 



207 

Queen ; pourtrayed her as the offspring of adultery and incest, 
a heretic and the maintainor of heretics, a persecutor of God's 
Church, a lascivious tyrant, and an unholy perjurer ; and concluded 
by calling upon all persons, l if they would avoid the Pope's, the 
King's, and the other Princes' high indignation,' if they would. 
escape ' the angel's curse and malediction upon the inhabitants of 
the land of Meroz,' to rise up against a woman odious alike to God 
and man, to join the liberating army upon its landing, and thus 
to free themselves from the disgrace of having ' suffered such a 
creature, almost thirty years together, to reign both over their 
bodies and souls, to the extinguishing not only of religion, but of 
all chaste living and honesty.' " a 

This is strong language, which, even a Romanist admits, was 
held towards our Queen. What would have been the fate of a 
Protestant in Rome or Madrid at that period, had he published 
such treason against the reigning sovereign ? What would be our 
feeling now if Jesuitised English Romanists published the same 
against our present Queen? 

And although, as we have seen Mr. Tierney say, the " See 
of Rome" did not in any way concern itself with the Spanish 
invasion, he, with marvellous inconsistency, admits that the Pope 
collected a subsidy of a million crowns, and held it " ready to be 
paid so soon as the invading army should have landed in England." 5 

That the " Catholic" subjects of England were not seduced into 
sedition was to the credit of themselves and of Elizabeth, and 
proved, what I have already asserted, that the discontent and 
treasons were not from within but from without. The description 
given of these proceedings by the Secular Priests proves this, 
and merits a place in every history of these eventful times. They 
say:— c 

" But now we are come to the year 1588, and to that most bloody 
attempt, not only against her Majesty and our common enemies, 
but against ourselves, all Catholics ; nay, against this flourishing 
kingdom and our own native country. The memory of such attempt 
will be (as we trust) an everlasting monument of Jesuitical treason 

a Tierney's " Note's to Dodd's Church History," vol.iii, p. 29. London, 1839. 
b Ibid. 
Watson's " Considerations," pp. 56-59 ; Mcndham's reprint. London, 
1831. 



208 

and cruelty. For it is apparent, in a treatise penned by the advice 
of Father Parsons altogether (as we do verily think), that the 
King of Spain was especially moyed and drawn to that intended 
mischief against us, by the long and daily solicitation of the Jesuits, 
and other English Catholics beyond the seas affected and altogether 
given to Jesuitism. And whereas, it is well known that the Duke 
of Medina Sidonia had given it out directly that, if once he might 
land in England, both Catholics and heretics that came in his way 
should be all one to him, his sword could not discern them ; so he 
might make way for his Master, all was one to him ; yet the said 
Father Parsons did labour with all the rhetoric he had to have 
persuaded us, upon the supposed arrival of the Spaniard, to have 
joined with him to our own destruction; telling us many fair tales, 
and alluring us with sundry great promises, all of them mere 
illusions, falsehoods, and most traitorous instigations and jugglings. 
He ascribeth it to error of conscience and want of courage, term- 
ing the same an effeminate dastardy, that we had then suffered her 
Majesty almost thirty years to reign over us. He threatened us 
with excommunication and utter ruin, both of ourselves and all our 
posterity, if we did then any longer obey, abet or aid, defend or 
acknowledge her Highness to be our Queen or Superior, and did 
not forthwith join ourselves with all our forces to the Spaniards. 
The good Cardinal, by Parsons' means, is drawn to say, that the 
Pope had made him Cardinal, intending to send him as his legate 
for the sweeter managing of this (forsooth !) godly and great affair, 
and to affirm upon his honour and on the word of a Cardinal that, 
in the fury of the Spaniards' intended conquest, there should be as 
great care had of every Catholic and penitent person as possibly 
could be. And to allure the nobility of this realm, he promised 
them to become an humble suitor on their behalves, that (so as 
they show themselves valiant in assisting the King of Spain's 
forces) they might continue their noble names and families. This 
Jesuit also telleth all Catholics, the better to comfort them (but 
indeed to the great scandal for ever of all priesthood), and to show 
how just and holy the cause was they had in hand, that there were 
divers priests in the King's army ready to serve every man's 
spiritual necessity, by confession, council, and all consolation in 
Christ Jesus. Also he so advanceth the forces of the enemies, and 
extenuated her Majesty's abilities to withstand them, as he counted 



209 

the victory obtained in effect before they were landed ; telling us 
that, besides the said great forces, we should be so assisted by 
the blessed Patrons both in Heaven and Earth, with the guard of 
all God's holy Angels, with our blessed Saviour himself in the 
Sovereign Sacrament, and with the daily most holy oblation of 
Christ's own dear body and blood, as it could not fall out other- 
wise but that we must needs prevail. Which kind of persuasions, 
some of them being ridiculous, the most very traitorous, and these 
last most blasphemous, as tending so greatly to the dishonour of 
religion, we detest and abhor." 

These same Priests make this further notable admission, that, 
" in all these Jesuitical and disloyal practices, we doubt not but 
that the Pope, as a temporal prince, did join and contribute towards 
this intended invasion." a All this Mr. Cobbett characteristically 
suppresses. But it is not true that the Eomanists " were still 
treated with every species of barbarous cruelty." That some of 
these traitors were put to death is true, but who is to blame ? It 
was not until 1593 (35 Eliz. c. ii.), five years after the intended 
invasion, that an additional Act was passed " for the restraining of 
Popish recusants to some certain place of abode." The declared 
object of the Act being — " the better to discover and avoiding of 
such traitorous and most dangerous conspiracies and attempts as 
are daily devised and practised against * * * the Queen's 
Majesty * * * by persons * * * terming themselves 
Catholics." The Secular Priests sum up what was done for the ten 
years between 1580 and 1590 : — 

" In these ten years last mentioned, from 1580 to 1590, or 
but little before, we find her Majesty to be excommunicated by 
Gregory XIII. M. Sherwin and the rest of our brethren, too 
much Jesuited, refuse to answer whether they will take the 
Queen's part or the Pope's, if he should come by force of arms to 
assail her in her own kingdom. Parsons and Hey wood are found 
to be practitioners, but especially Parsons. The intention of the 
Duke of Guise is entertained here and prosecuted ; her Majesty's 
life is sought by treachery ; Babington and his companions shoot 
at the Crown; Stanley is a treacherer, breaketh his faith, and is 
defended for so doing. Then followed the invasion ; and, lastly, 
Parsons' plottings in Spain, and the erection of new seminaries 
'Watson's " Considerations," p. 59. Reprint, London, 1831. 

P 



210 

there. Now let us consider how we ourselves all this while have 
been dealt with. Such of us as remained in prison at Wisbech 
(and were committed thither, 1580, and others not long after 
committed also thither, to the number of about 33 or 34), con- 
tinued still in the several times of all the said most wicked 
clesignments as we were before, and were never brought into any- 
trouble for them, but lived there, college-like, without any want, 
and in good reputation with our neighbours that were Catholics 
about us. It is true that towards the number of 50 (as our 
memory serveth us) priests and Catholics of all sorts, within the 
compass of the said ten years, were put to death — we say upon our 
knowledge (concerning the most of them) — for their consciences, 
but our adversaries (as they think) do still affirm for treason. 
Such priests as in their examination were found anything moderate 
were not so hardly proceeded with, in as much as 55 (to our re- 
membrance) that by the laws (we acknowledge) might likewise 
have been put to death were in one year, viz., 1585 (what time 
great mischiefs were in hand), spared from that extremity, and 
only banished." a 

But Elizabeth's troubles did not cease with the dispersion of 
the " Invincible Armada " : — 

" The intrigues of Spain [at this period] were not limited to 
France and England; by means of the never failing pretence of 
religion, joined to the influence of money, Philip excited new dis- 
orders in Scotland, and gave fresh alarms to Elizabeth. George 
Ker, brother to Lord Newbottle, had been taken while he was 
passing secretly into Spain, and papers were found about him, by 
which a dangerous conspiracy of some Catholic noblemen with 
Philip was discovered. The Earls of Angus, Errol, and Huntley, 
the heads of three potent families, had entered into a confederacy 
with the Spanish Monarch, and had stipulated to rouse all their 
forces, to join them to a body of Spanish troops which Philip 
promised to send into Scotland, and after re-establishing the 
Catholic religion in the kingdom, to march with their united 
power in order to effect the same purpose in England." b 

» Watson's " Considerations," pp. 60, 61. Eeprint, London, 1831. 
b Hume, ch. xliii, vol. iv, p. 121. London, 1830. Spotswood, p. 391. 
Byiner, torn, xvi, p. 190, cited by Hume. 



211 

" Whilst the said invasion was talked of, and in preparation in 
Spain, a shorter course was thought of, if it might have had 
success. Master Hesket was set on by the Jesuits, 1592, or there- 
abouts, with Father Parsons' consent or knowledge, to have stirred 
up the Earl of Derby to rebellion against her Highness. 

" Not long after good Father Holt, and others with him, 
persuaded an Irishman, one Patrick Collen (as he himself con- 
fessed), to attempt the laying of his violent and villanous hands 
upon her Majesty." a 

Shortly after, 5 in the year 1593, it was discovered that Fuentes 
and Ibarra, who had succeeded Parma in the government of the 
Netherlands, had bribed the Queen's physician to poison her : — 

" The Queen complained to Philip of these dishonourable 
attempts of his ministers, but could obtain no satisfaction. York 
and Williams, two English traitors, were afterwards executed for a 
conspiracy with Ibarra, equally atrocious." c " Hereunto we might 
add the villanous attempt, 1599, of Edward Squire, animated and 
drawn thereto (as he confessed) by Walpole, that pernicious 
Jesuit." d 

The last five years of the reign of Elizabeth were disturbed by 
the rebellion of Tyrone in Ireland. He also proclaimed himself a 
champion of Rome, and " openly exulted in the present of a 
phcenix plume, which the Pope, Clement VIII., in order to 
encourage him in the prosecution of so good a cause, had conse- 
crated and had conferred upon him." e He was assisted by the 
Spaniards under d' Aquila, who assumed the title of — General in the 
Holy War for the Preservation of the Faith in Ireland" f In the year 
1600, the Pope sent a bull into Ireland, which is preserved in 
Wilkins' Concilia s (from the State Paper Office), offering the 
rebels, and all who should assist them, the same indulgences as 
were contained in the bull imported by Sanders in 1580, that they 
might "more courageously and cheerfully endeavour themselves 

a Watson's "Important Considerations," p. 64. Eeprint, 1831. 
b I am now following Mr. Scudamore's book referred to above, p. 206. 
e Hume, p. 123, vol. iv. London, 1830. 

d " Important Considerations," p. 64, as above. Camden, b. iv, pp, 429, 
431, 440. London, 1635. 

e Hume, ch. xliv, p. 157. Camden, an. 1599, b. iv, p. 511. 
f Hume, as above, p. 177. Camden, an. 1601, b. iv, p. 567. 
s Tom. iv, p. 362. London, 1737. 

p 2 



212 

against the heretics ; " and just before the Queen's death, this 
same Clement VIII. issued a bull, declaring that " none, though 
never so near in blood, should, after Queen Elizabeth's death, be 
admitted to the crown, but such an one as would not only tolerate 
the Roman religion, but would swear to promote and settle it." a 

It is satisfactory to find that, even at the end of her long reign, 
after such painful and perpetual experience of the restless enmity 
of the Popes and of their more zealous adherents, the Queen was 
still able to distinguish between the Bull Papists (as they were 
called) and the loyal Roman Catholics, as admitted by one of 
themselves : — 

"By a proclamation of November 7, 1601, the Queen banished 
the Jesuits, and such priests as espoused their principles and party, 
forbidding them, under pain of death, ever to return into England; 
but to such clergy as would give a true profession of her allegiance, 
she signified her wish to show favour and indulgence. The cir- 
cumstance, as an omen portending happiness, was eagerly em- 
braced by some of the leading clergy, and they came forward with 
a protestation of allegiance, dated January 31st, 1602." b 

It should be observed, however, that only thirteen out of four 
hundred priests then in England signed this document. Its effect 
on their position among their brethren is also worth noting, as 
recorded by the same Romish writer : — 

" Their act was represented as little less than schismatical ; the 
university of Louvain gravely pronounced that they had sinned 
through ignorance and imprudence, but that it was not the sin of 
absolute heresy ; and Dr. Champney, one of the thirteen, a man of 
singular endowments, being, some years afterwards, appointed 
director to a convent of nuns, was compelled to surrender the 
important charge on its being notified to his fair penitents that he 
had signed that horrible protestation." c 

I will conclude these notices of the reign of Elizabeth by citing 
some express testimonies to the fact (which few readers perhaps 
will now be inclined to doubt), that the Romanists who suffered 



-* Foulis, p. 677, edition 1671, from Cardinal D'Ossat's letters. 
«> Berington's Introduction to the " Life of Panzani," p. 68. Binning, 
ham, 1753. 
c Ibid, p. 72. 



213 

during that period suffered, in the intention of the Legislature, as 
traitors, and not as professors of a persecuted religion,* as 
repeatedly alleged by Mr. Cobbett. 

Soon after the conspiracy of Somervile in 1583, a pamphlet was 
published by order of Lord Burleigh, entitled, " Execution of 
justice in the land, for maintenance of public and Christian peace, 
against certain stirrers of sedition and adherents to the traitors 
and enemies of the realm, without any persecution of them for 
questions of religion, as is falsely reported and published by these 
traitors and fosterers of treason." The date is determined by internal 
evidence ; it may be sufficient to have quoted the title. The tract 
has been republished under a shorter title, in Bishop Gibson's 
" Preservative against Popery." b It is to be found also in the 
" Harleian Miscellany," vol. ii., and " Holinshed's Chronicles," 
vol. iii.; Strype assigns the composition of it to Burleigh, having 
seen the minutes " in his own hand among his papers." c 

At the same time was published a much shorter tract " against 
slanderous reports spread abroad in seditious books, letters, and 
libels, thereby to inflame the hearts of our countrymen," entitled 
— •" A declaration of the favourable dealing of her Majesty's Com- 
missioners appointed for the examination of certain traitors unjustly 
reported to be done upon them for matters of religion." d 

In the letter of Walsingham to Mr. Critoy, before cited (vol. ii, 
book iii), he lays down the following principles as those upon which 
he finds the Queen's proceedings to have been grounded : — 

"(1.) The one, that consciences are not to be forced, but to be 
won and reduced by the force of truth, with the aid of time and 
the use of all good means of instruction and persuasion. 

" (2.) The other, that the causes of conscience when they exceed 
their bounds may grow to be matter of faction — lose their nature ; 
and that sovereign princes ought distinctly to punish their practices 

a Voltaire, who has dedicated a special chapter to the reign of Elizabeth, 
in his "Essay on the Spirit of Nations" (c. xix), twice pointedly refers 
to the fact, that not one of the victims of the Roman Church who suffered 
under this reign suffered on account of their religion. 

b Vol. xvii, reprint. London, 1849. 

c Strype's " Annals of Queen Elizabeth," vol. iii, b. i, ch. xxiii, p. 408. 
Oxford, 1842. 

a Holinshed, vol. iii, p. 1357. 



214 

and contempt, though coloured with the pretence of conscience and 
religion." 

He then shews briefly that the Government had really acted on 
these principles. 

And, lastly, I quote from the tract called " Important Con- 
siderations," &c, written," as I have already stated, by the Secular 
Priests to expose the treasonable conduct of the Jesuits, and to 
warn the laity against their practices, and which appeared only two 
years before the death of Elizabeth, and, therefore, may be regarded 
as a view of the policy of her whole reign. In addition to the 
numerous passages I have copiously quoted, I select the following : — 
u . We are fully persuaded in our consciences, and as men who have 
some experience, that if the Catholics had never sought by indirect 
means to have vexed her Majesty with their designment against her 
crown : if the Pope and King of Spain had never plotted with the 
Duke of Norfolk : if the rebels in the North had never been heard 
of : if the bull of Pius Quintus had never been known : if the said 
rebellion had never been justified: if neither Stukeley nor the 
Pope had attempted anything against Ireland : if Gregory XIII. 
had not renewed the said excommunication : if the Jesuits had 
never come into England : if the Pope and King of Spain had not 
practised with the Duke of Guise for his attempt against her 
Majesty : if Parsons and the rest of the Jesuits, with other our 
countrymen beyond the seas, had never been agents in those 
traitorous and bloody designments of Throckmorten, Parry, Collen, 
Yorke, Williams, Squire, and such like : if they had not by their 
treaties and writings endeavoured to defame their Sovereign and 
their own country, labouring to have many of their books to be 
translated into divers languages, thereby to shew their own dis- 
loyalty : if Cardinal Alane and Parsons had not published the 
renovation of the said bull by Pius Quintus : if thereunto they had 
not added their scurrilous and unmanly admonition, or rather most 
profane libel, against her Majesty : if they had not sought by false 
persuasions and unghostly arguments to have allured the hearts of 
all Catholics from their allegiance : if the Pope had never been 
urged by them to have thrust the King of Spain into that barbarous 
action against the realm : if they themselves, with all the rest of 
that generation, had not laboured greatly with the said King for 
the conquest and invasion of this land by the Spaniards, who are 



215 

known to be the cruellest tyrants that live upon the earth : if in all 
their whole proceedings they had not from time to time depraved, 
irritated, and provoked both her Majesty and the State with those 
and many other such-like their most ungodly and unchristian 
practices : but on the contrary, if the Popes from time to time had 
sought her Majesty, by kind offices and gentle persuasions, never 
ceasing the prosecution of those and such-like courses of humanity 
and gentleness : if the Catholics and priests beyond the seas had 
laboured continually the furtherance of those most priest-like and 
divine allurements, and had framed their own proceedings in all 
their works and writings accordingly : if we at home all of us, both 
priests and people, had possessed our souls in meekness and 
humility, honoured her Majesty, borne with the infirmities of the 
State, suffered all things and death as true Catholic priests : if all 
of us (we say) had thus done, most assuredly the State would 
have loved us, or at least borne with us : where there is one 
Catholic there would have been ten : there had been no speeches 
amongst us of racks and tortures, nor any cause to have used them ; 
for none were ever vexed that way simply for that he was either priest 
of Catholic, but because they were suspected to have had their 
hands in some of the said traitorous designments. * * * And, 
therefore, let us all turn over the leaf and take another course than 
hitherto we have done." a "I know not," said Berington (from 
whom I have above quoted), " who the Secular Priests were that 
published the Considerations, anno 1601, but their statement shews 
what at that time was the belief of many ; and it shews how incon- 
sistent with the truth of things our own ideas have generally been." b 
Do not these facts offer a complete answer to Mr. Cobbett's 
slanderous charges against Elizabeth ? 

The events of this reign are unparalleled in history. It was the 
interposition of an over-ruling Providence which had protected 
Elizabeth from "the knavish tricks" of the Jesuits, instigated by 
four successive Popes. The historical facts I have laid before the 
reader, to a great extent derived from Romish authorities, totally 
annihilate the monstrous and wicked calumnies advanced by Mr. 
Cobbett, and propagated by his modern admirers — the Papists of 
the present day ; and, but for the importance of the subject, I 

a Pp. 70, 72. Mendham's edition. London, 1831. 

h Introduction to the " Life of Panzani," pp. 175. 76. Birmingham, 1753, 



216 

should feel humiliated at the task on which I have been employed, 
for I feel, to apply an old French proverb, I have employed 
paving stones to crush a wasp ! 

I have not thought Mr. Cobbett's charges against Elizabeth of 
lewdness and immorality worth a passing notice. He has not 
cited one single instance as an example, but has contented himself 
with the use of epithets conveying charges which even her bitterest 
enemies have never dared to particularise. I have thought it 
best to let the foul calumnies pass in silence, with the contempt 
they deserve, and I conclude this chapter with the following pane- 
gyric, which I take from the Preface, by Camden, of the " Annals 
of the History of Elizabeth :"— 

" In this worthy Queene, many rare virtues concurred, as wisdom, 
clemencie, learning, knowledge of tongues, constancie, temperance, 
chastity, magnanimity, and (which crowneth all the rest) zeale to 
pietie and true religion. But suppose all these to have been found 
in some one prince or another besides her ; yet this, which I 
shall now say of her, hath beene certainly from the creation of man 
upon earth, and (as a man may well guesse) for ever will be with- 
out example, a woman, and (if that be not enough) an unmarried 
virgin, destitute of all helps of parents, brethren, husband, beset 
with divers nations — her mortal! enemies (while the Pope fretted, 
the Spaniards threatened, and all her neighbour princes, as many 
as had sworn to Popery, raged round about her), held the most 
stout and warlike nation of the English, foure and forty yeares and 
upwards, not only in awe and duty, but even in peace also, and 
(which is most of all) in the true worship of God, abolishing 
Popery and superstition, insomuch as in all England, for so many 
yeares together, never any mortall man (which is strange to tell) 
ever heard the trumpet sound the charge to battell, nor ever saw 
any tumult or sedition, save only a little stirring in the North parts, 
which, like the bubbles which children blow up into the ayre, though 
it suddenly swelled and made a glorious shew, yet was it no sooner 
blowne up, then blowne out, and fell into the eyes of those which, 
with the blasts of ambition and superstition, held it up." 

* * " Her own shall bless her : 
Her fees shake like a field of beaten corn, 
And hang their heads with sorrow." 

Henry VIII., Act v. Scene iv. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE MASSACRE OP ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 

[This Chapter has been obligingly contributed by Dr. Henry White, whose 
excellent " History of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew " the Editor has 
great satisfaction in recommending. It will be found to contain a full 
account of that terrible event, and of the circumstances that led to it.] 

Perhaps, after Tom Paine's " Age of Reason," no more infamous 
book was ever published than the " History of the Protestant Re- 
formation " by Mr. William Cobbett. His recklessness of assertion, 
his daring violation of the truth, and his coarse vituperation of all 
that is good and great are fortunately unparalleled in literature, and 
are only equalled by his profound ignorance of the matters on which 
he writes so dictator ially. He cares nothing for facts — distorting, 
rejecting, and even inventing them, as best suits his purpose. 
This has been shown over and over again in the preceding pages, 
and we shall now proceed to demonstrate that his account of the 
Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and of the events which led to it, 
is quite as untrustworthy as any other part of his so-called History. 
It is not always easy to hunt down Mr. Cobbett's falsehoods and 
inaccuracies, because, with a wise regard to the danger of detection, 
he gives no authorities. For the convenience of our unlearned 
readers we shall adopt the same course ; but in the work mentioned 
at the foot of the page, 3 historical students will find references for 
every statement we make. 

Let us see what Cobbett's charges are. They are four in 
number : — 

1. He says that the massacre was in part "produced by Eliza- 
beth's incessant and most mischievous intrigues ;" b that she had 
" caused the civil wars in France, * * * by underhand means 
had stirred them up;" c and that she had supplied the money for 
Guise's murder. d 

2. " The disappointed nobles Coligny and Conde wanted no 
better motive than hatred to Guise for becoming most zealous 

•" History of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew," by Dr. H. White. 
London, Murray, 1868. 

b 270. « 274. a 278. 



218 

Protestants." a " They sold their country under the blasphemous 
plea of a love for the gospel." b " Conde sought to get rid of his 
murderous associates." c 

3. Poltrot was " instigated, and, indeed, employed for the 
express purpose [of murdering that " gallant nobleman and dis- 
tinguished patriot," Francis, Duke of Guise], by Coligny, and 
urged on by Beza, one of the most infamous of all the reforming 
preachers."* 1 " Black-hearted Coligny, inveterate and treacherous 
Coligny , e the pretended saint/ endeavoured to worm himself into 
favour with the young King." s 

4. It is " a monstrous violation of truth to ascribe the massacre 
to the principles of the Romish religion ;" h the number of victims 
was " only 786 persons ;" i and Elizabeth, after " hypocritically 
professing sorrow for the murders, wanted to marry Anjou, one of 
the perpetrators of the crime." J 

Charles IX. ascended the throne in December, 1560 (not 1561, 
as Cobbett says). k The crown, to which he succeeded at the early 
age of ten, never rested easily on his head. His mother, writing 
to her daughter the Queen of Spain, describes in few words the state 
of the country : — " God has committed to my charge three little 
children, a kingdom distracted by divisions, within which there is 
not one individual in whom I can trust, or one who is not swayed 
by private partiality." Her first care was (to use her own words 
to the French Ambassador in Spain) " to restore gently all that 
the wickedness of the times had damaged in France." Nor was 
this an easy matter, if we may trust the reports of the Venetian 
envoys, which tell of "an administration almost without rule or 
guide, justice violated and polluted, deadly hatreds, the passions and 
caprices of the powerful ones, the opposing interests of the princes, 
disobedience and tumult among the people with revolt among the 



Tn order to ascertain the causes of this state of affairs we must 
look back for a moment to the events of the two preceding reigns, 
and examine into the characters of the leading personages. "While 
Francis I. and Henry II. lived the country was quiet. They were 
men of mature years and of a certain firmness that impressed itself 
upon the government. During the reign of Henry II. the pro- 

a 270. b 275. c 279. d278. e 284. f 289. 

s 290. h 291. * 292. i 294. k 270. 



219 

fessors of the reformed doctrines were bitterly persecuted ; but 
their doctrines spread only the more rapidly among all classes both 
high and low. The " burning chambers " had no terrors for them, 
and the sanguinary edict of Chateaubriant, which the Pope con- 
demned as " too lenient," not only did not stay the progress of 
the " plague," but actually increased the number of Huguenots. 
So fiercely blazed the fires of persecution that the Eeformers would 
have taken up arms in self-defence had they not been advised by 
Calvin to make no resistance. They did what was far better : they 
organised their churches, and drew up a Confession of Faith and a 
Book of Discipline. In the Confession those Huguenots, whom 
Mr. Cobbett delights in abusing so much, laid down the doctrine 
of non-resistance with startling thoroughness : — " We must obey 
the laws and ordinances, pay tribute, tax, and other dues, and 
bear the yoke of subjection with hearty good- will, even should the 
magistrates be infidels." These are the " marauding and murder- 
ing Calvinists, whose creed taught them that good works were 
unavailing, and that no deeds, however base and bloody, could bar 
their way to salvation." This is wilful falsehood. No man taught 
more consistently or forcibly than Calvin that faith and morality 
were inseparable. " The main point is that our Master's holy 
doctrine should so transform us in heart and mind, that his glory 
should shine forth in us by innocence, integrity, and holiness." a 
The object of Calvin's whole life was to restore the supremacy of 
conscience, and in this he succeeded, leaving a mark on history 
that the slanders of a thousand Cobbetts cannot hide. In 1864 
Groen van Prinsterer, a man of reputation in politics and in lite- 
rature, wrote a little work, entitled " Holland, and the Influence of 
Calvin." In it there are two lines bearing on our subject: — 
" What was the principle of our strength ? It was in our origin. 
We are the offspring of Calvin's Geneva." And those who 
desire to know what sort of men these " offspring of Geneva" 
were, will find them described in the eloquent pages of Motley's 
" Rise of the Dutch Republic." They were the " marauding 
murdering Calvinists " who withstood the bloody Alva. They 
were the men who, having won liberty for the conscience, claimed 
liberty for the state also. Temporal liberty flowed necessarily 
from spiritual liberty. Hence it was that the Reformed Churches. 
a Letter to Eenee, Duchess of Ferrara, in 1537. 



220 

of France were able to exist during the stormy times coming upon 
them. While Henry II. was planning a fiercer campaign than ever 
against the Protestants, the judgment of God fell upon him, and 
he was succeeded by Francis II., a boy of sixteen. 

Francis, although not a minor, was too young to sway the 
sceptre himself, and readily confided the entire control of the 
state to Francis, Duke of Guise, uncle to the Queen. This gaye 
great dissatisfaction, the princes of the blood asserting their 
superior right to the Guises, who were foreigners. The latter had 
come from Lorraine (not then a part of France), in the reign of 
Francis I., and had soon made their way both in court and camp. 
Duke Francis was an able soldier, and among other exploits had 
distinguished himself by the capture of Calais, and the consequent 
expulsion of the English from " the sacred soil of France." He 
was exceedingly orthodox, and looked upon a heretic as a rebel 
both to his God and his King. 

Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, the Duke's brother, was as 
ambitious as he was unscrupulous. Handsome, eloquent, learned, 
and less immoral than many of the great ecclesiastics of the day, 
he was exceedingly popular among the clergy and at court ; but 
he was covetous and vindictive— qualities that often marred his 
brother's schemes. 

Two princes of the Bourbon family asserted their claim to a 
share of the government ; these were Anthony, Duke of Vendome 
and by marriage King of Navarre, and his brother, Louis of Conde. 
Anthony was brave, showy, and profuse, but wanted moral courage. 
In religion he changed from side to side as interest predominated, 
but died (as some assert) in the Reformed faith. Conde was a 
man of a different stamp ; hump-backed, short, awkward, and at 
first sight ill adapted for court or camp, he (like Richard, Duke 
of Gloucester,) excelled in both. He professed the Reformed 
religion, but took no care to live up to its principles. Protest- 
antism was to him nothing but a means of power and advancement. 
By his marriage with Eleanor de Roye, he united against the 
Guises the powerful houses of Montmorency, Chatillon, and 
Rochefoucault,, 

The Constable Montmorency was harsh in manners, proud of 
his descent from King Pharamond, a bigot in religion, and so 
ignorant that he could neither read nor write. The best known of 



221 

the Chatillons were Gaspard de Coligny and his brother Andelot. 
Cobbett says that Coligny turned Protestant because " he was dis- 
appointed that the Queen Dowager gave the preference to Guise and 
his party." This is a deliberate falsehood. Cobbett refers to the 
year 1561, when the Queen did not give the preference to Guise, and 
Coligny had long before this been known for his alleged heterodox 
opinions. During his imprisonment, after the battle of St. Quentin, 
he made the Bible his chief study, and adopted the Reformed creed. 
There can be no doubt about it. In March, 1560, during the tumult 
of Amboise, the Queen consulted him as the head of the Huguenot 
party ; and at the Fontainebleau meeting, on the 22nd of August, 
he presented a petition from the Huguenots, in which they justified 
their faith by Scripture, asserted their loyalty and love for the King, 
and professed that they had never understood their duty so well 
towards their sovereign as since they had been converted to the 
so-called new doctrine. Later in the year, when summoned to 
Orleans, he left a wife, shortly to become a mother, desiring her 
to have the babe christened by the " true ministers of the Word 
of God." In 1561, and at one of the sittings of the States 
General at Orleans, a speaker described him as a " reviver of 
old heresies," and the application of the words to him was so 
pointed, that he compelled the utterer to apologise for them. At 
Easter, 1561, he was at court, and there were " public preachings 
before his lodgings," so that Chantonnay, the Spanish Ambassador, 
complained of the toleration shown to heretics, and of the influence 
of Coligny, whose chaplain often preached to a congregation of more 
than 300 persons. So far it is clear that long before the civil war 
broke out, Coligny had become known, not only as a Protestant, 
but as the head of the Protestant party. 

But what was the cause of the civil war ? Religion had little 
to do with it. Faction had run high during the reign of 
Francis II., and the enemies of the Lorraine, or Guisian, Govern- 
ment had got up an extensive plot against it. The object of the 
conspirators, both Romanists and Protestants, was to carry off 
the King, to withdraw him from the influence of the Guises, to 
arrest Duke Francis and the Cardinal of Lorraine, and bring them 
to trial under an accusation of high treason. The plot was dis- 
covered, and the vengeance of the Guises was atrocious. The 
streets of Amboise were flooded with human blood. The waters 



222 

of the Loire were infected with the number of victims drowned in 
it. Twelve hundred persons are computed to have perished in 
this massacre — all sacrificed that the " patriotic " Guise and his 
brother might retain their ill-gotten power. The accession of 
Charles IX. did not bring peace to the kingdom, or toleration to 
the Protestants. The people were rapidly dividing into two hostile 
parties, and the Eomish Church did all it could to widen the 
gulf between them. As the Romanists increased in violence, the 
Huguenots increased in consciousness of their strength, and many 
of them returned blow for blow. 

" Some heretics are put to death every day," wrote the Nuncio 
Santa Croce to the Court of Rome. " Yesterday four were burnt, 
and to-day they are preparing for a similar spectacle." It was 
impossible that this state of things could last, and a meeting of 
Notables was held at St. Germain's to try and arrange matters. 
The famous Chancellor de l'Hopital showed the impolicy of those 
who wished the King to put himself at the head of one part of his 
subjects, and establish peace by the destruction of the other ; and 
the result was the celebrated edict of January, 1562 — a sort of 
compromise, which granted a certain amount of toleration, among 
other things permitting the Huguenots to assemble for the purpose 
of religious worship. The Cardinal of Lorraine accepted the edict, 
acknowledging that some reformation was necessary, but the 
Romish party at once began to range themselves in opposition to 
the Crown. Tavannes drove two thousand of the Huguenots out 
of Dijon, and ordered the peasantry of Burgundy " to massacre all 
who prayed elsewhere than in the churches." The Protestants of 
Aix had been accustomed to worship under a fir tree outside the 
walls. Every morning, for weeks, men and women were seen 
hanging from its branches ; they had been seized in the night and 
executed without trial. 

Just at this time, when it was so necessary that the Government 
hould be strengthened in order to carry out the law, Anthony of 
Navarre sold himself to the enemy (February, 1562). We need 
not enquire into the motives which induced him to apostatise ; they 
were as unworthy as they are undisputed. The Guise party, or the 
Triumvirate, was immensely strengthened by this perversion. They 
aimed at supremacy, but Coligny stood in the way. Philip II. of 
Spain offered to help them, and some months before (October, 1561,) 



223 

he had had the insolence to tell Catherine that, if religious matters 
were not arranged (and we know what that means in a Papist's 
mouth), he would send troops to the aid of the Catholics. The 
Queen Regent answered as became her position, and there is no 
reason to doubt the sincerity of her desire to maintain a religious 
toleration, even at the risk of foreign war. She appears to have 
gone so far as to consult Coligny as to the number of men the 
Reformed Churches could bring into the field. But events moved 
so swiftly that she had, for the time, no alternative but to go 
with the stream. On Sunday, 1st March, occurred the frightful 
massacre at Vassy. The retainers of the Duke of Guise, between 
two hundred and three hundred in number, attacked a peaceful 
congregation of Huguenots, murdered between fifty and sixty, and 
wounded about two hundred, some of them mortally. As may be 
imagined, there was a tremendous excitement all over France, the 
fanatic Romish populace exulting as much over the slaughter as 
the Protestants bewailed it. Beza demanded the punishment of 
the murderers, but the Queen Regent was too weak to make the 
attempt. Meanwhile, Duke Francis made a triumphant entrance 
into Paris, at the head of twelve hundred gentlemen on horseback. 
The multitude hailed him as a second Judas Maccabasus, and called 
upon him to extirpate heresy. Catherine, fearing a collision 
between the two parties in the streets, prevailed upon Conde and 
Guise to leave the capital. She soon found her mistake in sending 
Conde out of the way, and, dreading the tyranny and overbearing 
insolence of the Triumvirate, wrote to that Prince, begging him to 
protect her and the young King " from the greatest enemy France 
can have, and who is also yours." This is indisputable ; though 
we may doubt Catherine's sincerity in the matter, there is no doubt 
as to the language of her letters. Conde consulted with the chiefs 
of the Huguenot party, who came to the resolution to get posses- 
sion of the Bang's person and carry him off to Orleans ; but the 
Triumvirate were too quick for them, and forcibly removed Charles 
and the Queen Regent to Paris. The latter sent off a hasty 
express to Conde, in the hope that he would be able to rescue 
them on the road, but the hope was vain. And thus broke out 
the civil war ; and thus falls to the ground Mr. Cobbett's story 
that Queen Elizabeth " caused it by underhand means." 

The second and third counts of Mr. Cobbett's indictment are 



224 

that the Huguenots " sold their country under the blasphemous 
plea of a love for the gospel," and that " Coligny, urged on by 
Beza, one of the most infamous of all the reforming preachers, 
instigated Poltrot to murder the patriotic Duke of Guise." In 
reading such charges, and the epithets with which they are 
seasoned, one is reminded of the tricks of a vulgar hired advocate, 
who is paid to make white appear black, and black, white. Guise 
was not a patriot in any sense of the term, except it be that applied 
to certain Botany Bay emigrants, whom Barrington, one of their 
number, describes as " true patriots, who leave their country for 
their country's good." 

I have no desire to deprive Guise of any merit that may be 
his due ; appreciations of character depend very much upon the 
point of view assumed, and the temperament of the historian. The 
massacres of Amboise and of Vassy prove the Duke to have been 
an insolent butcher of unarmed men and women. As a patriot, he 
certainly did not belong to the class which contains such men as 
Wallace and Tell, Hampden and Russell. All his patriotism 
tended to the aggrandisement of himself and his family : the good 
of his country was a very secondary consideration in his eyes. In 
1561, months before the civil war broke out, Guise, with his two 
confederates Montmorency and St. Andre, had entered into a 
treasonable arrangement with Philip II. of Spain, by which that 
monarch bound himself to aid with money and men in the extir- 
pation of heresy in France. Surely, it must be a mistake to call that 
man a patriot who invited foreign troops into the kingdom in defiance 
of the Government, " to blot out entirely the name, family, and 
race of Bourbon, and to spare the life of no heretic." Nor is this 
all, for when Catherine asked whether the Duke and his friends 
would refuse to obey the King in case he changed his religion, he 
answered that they would. 

But whether Duke Francis was a patriot or the reverse, he was 
certainly murdered by Poltrot ; and the question is — How far was 
Coligny implicated in that crime ? He was accused of it, and the 
assassin confessed under torture that the Admiral had bribed him 
to commit the crime. But it must be remembered that Poltrot 
also implicated others, of whose innocence there could be no doubt. 
It may, however, be conceded, that Coligny 's conduct and language 
after the murder were not altogether satisfactory. Although a 



225 

sincere Christian, he was not faultless, or above the failings of the 
age. We do not put him forward as a man without spot or blemish, 
yet the worst that can be said of him is, that he was not unwilling 
to profit by the murder, though he would do nothing to further it. 
"Do not imagine," he told the Queen Mother, " that what I say 
proceeds from any regret which the Duke's death occasions me : 
no ; far from that, I esteem it the greatest blessing that could 
possibly haye befallen this kingdom, the Church of God, and more 
especially, myself and all my house." On these words, Henri 
Martin, the latest French historian, remarks, " they bear the stamp 
of truth." a He continues, " Coligny believed in the lawfulness of 
tyrannicide inspired by heaven : he accepted the deed when done, 
but had not suggested it." As against Mr. Cobbett, the answer is 
complete. But then, Elizabeth furnished the money ! All that 
Poltrot confessed was, that Coligny had given him money to pur- 
chase a horse ! A charge that has never been made by any French 
writer, we may safely put aside as calumnious. 

Beza was also charged with complicity in the assassination of 
Francis of Guise. For a wonder, Mr. Cobbett does not notice 
this, but makes up for it by calling him "the most infamous of all 
the Eeforming preachers." Would that were the truth ; for, if he 
was the " most infamous," his colleagues must indeed have been 
men of such purity of manner and holiness of life as the world has 
perhaps never witnessed since the apostolic age. Cobbett has over- 
shot his mark here. It is true that in early manhood Beza wrote 
some Latin poems that were not of the chastest order. I have 
never read them, but I willingly concede the point. But what 
man is there among us who can look back without a blush to the 
days of his youth ? The Church which Cobbett, who boasted of 
his Protestantism, undertook to defend, reckons among its most 
famous saints men to whom Beza's errors would have seemed 
most venial. It will be sufficient to mention one, St. Augustine, 
whose " Confessions " are easily accessible. Beza was a man of noble 
birth and a ripe scholar ; he had seen much of courts, and, in the 
fashionable society of Paris, had acquired a remarkable grace of 
manner. He was converted by a serious illness. " As soon as I 
could leave my bed," he told his friend and tutor, Wolmar, " I 

a Martin, " Histoire de France," ix, p. 154. Quatrieme edition. 

Q 



226 

broke all my chains, and went into voluntary exile with my wife to 
follow Christ." This " infamous " man was appointed speaker for 
the Protestants at the famous Colloquy of Poissy, where he was 
graciously received by the Queen Regent, the Cardinals of Lorraine 
and Bourbon, and by the pious Queen of Navarre . Here, if ever, 
was the time to unmask the hypocrite ; but the Roman doctors 
did not utter one word during the whole Colloquy against Beza's 
moral life. Be sure they would not have lost the opportunity had 
one existed. His licentious poems were written while he belonged 
to the Church of Rome ; it was the purer light of the Reformed 
Church that made him ashamed of them. 

The second civil war broke out in 1567. The Huguenots 
rushed to arms in self-defence; Coligny advised patience: — "I 
see clearly how we may rekindle the fire, but not where we may 
find water to quench it." The war lasted only six months, and 
was ended by the Treaty of Longjumeau. While engaged in the 
negotiations the Admiral lost his wife. We give a portion of the 
pathetic letter she addressed to her husband : — " I feel very 
unhappy in dying so far from you, whom I have always loved 
more than myself ; but I take comfort from the knowledge that 
you are kept away from me by the best of motives. I entreat 
you, by the love you bear me, and by the children I leave you as 
pledges of my love, to fight to the last extremity for God's service 
and the advancement of religion. * * * Train up our children 
in the pure religion, so that if you fail them they may one day 
take your place ; and, as they cannot yet spare you, do not expose 
your life more than is necessary." For a time the bereaved 
husband vfas inconsolable. " God, what have I done," he 
exclaimed in the anguish of his heart ; " what have I done that I 
should be so severely chastised ! Would that I might lead a 
holier life and present a better example of godliness ! Most Holy 
Father, look upon me, if it please Thee, and in the multitude 
of Thy mercies relieve my sufferings." This " black-hearted 
treacherous man" was consistent from first to last. When hosti- 
lities threatened, after the murders at Vassy, Coligny alone held 
back, and when his wife urged him to take the field, he drew a 
terrible picture of civil war and the possible fate of herself and 
children, and begged her to take three weeks to deliberate seriously. 
" The three weeks are already past," she said; " you will never be 



227 

conquered by the virtue of your enemies; employ your own; and 
do not take upon your head the murders of three weeks." 

Mr. Co bbett would have us believe that Conde brought about 
the Pacification of Amboise, 1563, because, he wanted u to get rid 
of his miscreant associates." a A very unfortunate mis-statement; 
for Conde continued to lead the Reformed party until his death by 
assassination at the battle of Jarnac, in 1569, where he fought side 
by side with Coligny and his brother Andelot. There is no doubt 
that Conde desired peace, and so did both parties. Guise being- 
dead and the Constable a prisoner, there was no one to take the 
command of the Royal army. " I was obliged to command it 
myself," said Catherine. Peace had become a necessity. On this 
point the testimony of Castelnau, a Romish writer, is indisputable. 
After describing the exhausted state of the country, he says : — 
"Commerce was quite given up. No one was secure of his 
property or life." 

Cobbett next charges the Huguenots with " selling their country 
under the blasphemous plea of a love of the Gospel." b -This refers 
to the treaty of Hampton Court, signed on the 20th September, 
1562, by which Elizabeth agreed to furnish 6,000 men, one-half of 
whom were to garrison Havre, as a material guarantee, until the 
end of the war. To use the language of diplomacy, this was worse 
than a crime, it was a mistake ; but let it be remembered on behalf 
of the Huguenots, that they were fighting for existence, that their 
enemies were receiving help both in men and money from the 
Pope and the King of Spain, and that Elizabeth made the occupation 
of Havre an indispensable condition of supporting the Huguenots. 
That the French crown would have restored Calais to England 
but for this occupation of Havre is one of those statements which 
make us smile at Mr. Cobbett's credulity. But even in this 
instance Conde (for Coligny c had nothing to do with it) was only 
following the example of the " patriotic" Duke of Guise, who 
" purchased the neutrality of the Duke of Savoy by the cession 
of Turin and the finest portion of Piedmont, notwithstanding the 
remonstrances of good Frenchmen." d 

a 269. b 275. 

c Coligny had declared that " he would sooner die than consent to be the 
Sfirst to invite foreign soldiers into France." 

d Anquetil, " Esprit de la Ligue," i, p. 14G. 5th edition. 

■Q 2 



228 

This portion of Mr. Cobbett's book supplies us with two 
startling instances of his profound ignorance of the matters on 
which he is writing. Every historian is liable to fall into error ; 
but there are certain errors which he cannot commit if he under- 
stands his subject. Mr. Cobbett says a that " Vidame, an agent of 
Conde and Coligny, came' secretly oyer to England." This is just 
as if we were- to read in the Times newspaper one morning, that 
" Viceroy, an agent of Mr. Gladstone, went oyer to Ireland." 
There was no such person as Vidame ; it was a mere title giyen to 
the layman or soldier who acted as the Bishop's representative in 
civil and military matters. It was the Vidame of Chartres, a 
well-known personage, who came to England ; but Mr. Cobbett 
knew nothing about either the man or the title. Again, he 
says, b that when the Romanists took Rouen by assault they put 
to death the whole garrison, " including the English reinforce- 
ment;" which is not true, for they all escaped down the river. 
Again, we read, c that while the King was " making a progress 
through the kingdom, about four years after the pacification, a plot 
was formed by Coligny to kill or seize him." Certainly a plot was 
formed to seize him, not to kill him; but was it worse in the 
Huguenots than in. the Triumvirate, who actually did seize him, in 
April, 1562 ? The "pacification," mentioned by Cobbett, was that 
of March, 1568, and the progress began at the end of 1564 and 
was over in the beginning of 1566. The civil war broke out in 
September, 1567, and the King was not on a progress but residing 
at Meaux. In an ordinary writer such blunders and miscalcula- 
tions would be venial ; but as Cobbett makes no allowance for the 
errors of others, he can claim no mercy for his own. 

Mr. Cobbett, whose political experience had taught him the 
power of reckless assertion, tries next to befoul one of the noblest 
personages in French history — one of whom every Frenchman is 
proud. He describes Coligny as " black-hearted, inveterate (what- 
ever that may mean), and treacherous," d and a "pretended sai?it" 
11 who endeavoured to worm himself into favour with the young 
King." e When Henry of Anjou (afterwards Henry III.) was on his 
way to Poland, he stopped at Heidelberg, where the Elector Palatine, 
when showing him over the castle, drew his attention to two 
pictures ; one was a portrait of Coligny ; another, a representation 
a 273. b 276, c28S d 2S4. « 290. 



229 

of his death. " Of all the French nobles it has been my good 
fortune to know," said he, " I esteem the original of this portrait 
to have been the most zealous for the glory and welfare of his 
country, and his loss is a public calamity, which his most Christian 
Majesty (Charles IX.) will never be able to repair." This was 
said to the man who had hired the Admiral's assassins. Laboureur, 
a Romish priest, describes Coligny as " one of the greatest men 
France ever produced, and I venture to say further, one of the most 
attached to his country." Brantome, a decided enemy, declares 
that Coligny desired nothing more than freedom of conscience, and 
that he abhorred civil war. After a page of magnificent eulogy, 
Anquetil thus sums up : — " Besides these good qualities, Coligny 
was a man of irreproachable, and even severe, morality — an essential 
virtue in a religious war. He was a good husband and a good 
father ; the most laborious of men, enjoying a credit without 
example among his followers, and the greatest reputation among 
foreigners." a M. Henri Martin, the latest historian of France, 
says, with reference to the Tumult of Amboise, " that, as an 
Evangelical Christian and great officer of the Crown [he was 
Admiral of France], the conscientious Coligny was not a man to 
enter into a conspiracy to do violence to the King." In another 
place, b speaking of his unwillingness to draw the sword, M. 
Martin, after describing him as " constant and firm in his 
affections and in his duties, seeking for truth only in his belief, 
and for justice in his actions," -refers his readers to Michelet's 
grand picture of " that heroic man." And if this evidence be not 
enough, we will add the description given of him by the Papal 
Legate Santa Croce : — " He was remarkable for his prudence and 
coolness. His manners were severe ; he always appeared serious 
and absorbed in his meditations. His eloquence was weighty. He 
was skilled in Latin and Divinity, and he grew in people's love 
the more they knew his frankness and devotedness to his friends." 
And then, adds the Pope's Ambassador, "He never told a lie ,*" — 
which may be the reason why Cobbett hated him so bitterly. 

Let us now see how " the pretended saint endeavoured to worm 
himself into the favour of the young King." As Cobbett mentions 
no particular time, we presume he refers to the period between the 

a " Esprit de la Ligue," ii, p. 58. Fifth edition. 
b Martin, " Histoire de France," p. 118. 



230 

peace of St. Germains (1570) and the Massacre. Now let us 
appeal from the editor of the " Gridiron " to documentary and con- 
temporary evidence. In 1571 , Coligny was living quietly at Rochelle, 
when Charles IX., who wanted his advice with regard to the pro- 
posed war in Flanders, invited him to Court.. Walsingham writes 
that " the King is now very well affected towards him [Coligny "]. 
And, in another letter, announcing his departure for Blois^ where 
the Admiral would meet Charles IX., he says : — u I am most con- 
stantly assured that the King conceiveth of no subject he hath 
better than of the Admiral, and great hope there is that the King 
will use him in matters of greatest trust, for, of himself, he beginneth 
to see the insufficiency of others ; some, for that they are more 
addicted to others than to himself ; others, for that they are more 
Spanish than French." Coligny long evaded compliance with the 
invitation, but gave way at last, notwithstanding the many warnings 
of treachery. When he arrived at Blois (12th September, 1571,) 
the King kissed him, and called it " the happiest day of his life ;" 
adding, "you are more welcome than any one I have seen these 
many years." Unless Charles was a thorough hypocrite, and was 
playing a traitorous part, he soon grew really so fond of Coligny 
that Catherine grew jealous of him. Cobbett would have said that 
the arts employed by Coligny to gain his Sovereign's esteem 
were evil ones. The hypothesis will not hold good for an instant. 
When Brabantio charged Othello with " beguiling his daughter," 
the valiant Moor explained the kind of "magic" he had used to 
win Desdemona's love. So we may imagine Coligny repeating the 
story of his campaigns, and Charles kindling at the spirit-stirring 
narrative. Even when the Admiral was away, the King kept up 
an affectionate correspondence with him, for " he had learnt to 
trust him as a child trusts a father." I believe I have read every 
line of the contemporary correspondence, every contemporaneous 
history and document, but I have not yet seen anything to justify 
Mr. Cobbett's charge of " deep dissimulation," and of " worming 
himself " into the King's favour. I defy any one to substantiate 
the charge ; the dissimulation (if any) was all on the other side. 

I come now to the last portion of my disgusting task — the 
description of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. I shall not 
condescend to bandy abuse with such a master of Billingsgate as 
Qobbett ; nor shall I discuss whether Coligny's murder was a "just 



231 

vengeance " on the part of Henry, the young Duke of Guise. 
Protestants deny that the end justifies the means ; they deny that 
one assassination is a justification of another. The Eonianists 
cannot come into court with clean hands, and they find it easier to 
abuse the Huguenots than to convict them. 

Coligny and many of his friends had come to Paris by the 
King's invitation, when " some one " shot him. The Huguenots 
said it was the Duke of Guise, " though no proof has ever been 
produced to support the assertion." It may be so, but the pre- 
sumption was far stronger than in Poltrot's case. The assassin 
Maurevel was stationed in a house belonging to the Duke's tutor ; 
he was taken there by the Duke's steward ; he had served as a 
page in the Lorraine family; in August, 1572, he was in the 
Duke's service, and the horse on which he escaped came from the 
Duke's stables. But we have stronger evidence still. The Duke 
of Anjou says, in his remarkable confession : — " We [Catherine 
and himself] determined to get rid of the Admiral, and took 
Madame de Nemours into our council." This lady was the widow 
of the Duke whom Poltrot murdered ; and to her Anjou and Duke 
Henry made the atrocious proposition that she should shoot Coligny 
with her own hand when he came to Court. This we have on the 
evidence of Salviati the Papal Nuncio, who was probably well 
informed. So much for the want of proof asserted by Cobbett 
But Duke Henry has quite enough crimes to answer for withou 
adding this to their number. 

But the Huguenots threatened revenge, says Cobbett untruly 
and the Court resolved to anticipate the blow. The Parisians 
entered heartily into the plot, for " they mortally hated the Pro- 
testants, and had not forgotten Coligny's having put the English 
in possession of Havre." It is very singular that this charge 
was never made against the Huguenots or their leader ; but was- 
reserved for an Englishman to unearth after more than two cen- 
turies and a half. That was not the crime of the Huguenots ; 
their offence lay in their Protestantism. The Guises were greater 
traitors than Coligny or Conde, but were popular and forgiven 
because they were the defenders of the Eomish Church. Cobbett 
says : — " It is a monstrous violation of truth to ascribe this 
Massacre to the principles of the Catholic religion." If it be 
conceded that political and personal motives were the actual cause. 



232 

of the Massacre, still Eome endorsed it and accepted it. This is a 
point on which the friends of Popery, if they were wise, would be 
silent. Let us look back a few years. In 1562 Cardinal Strozzi, 
Bishop of Albi, excited the populace of Gaillac to murder their 
Protestant brethren, with whom they had hitherto lived on friendly 
terms. When Serbelloni, governor of the little Papal territory of 
Avignon, captured Orange, the Pontifical auxiliaries spared neither 
age nor sex ; all the sick in the hospital were killed, some being 
tossed from the windows on to the spears of the soldiers below ; 
and women were hanged from the balconies of the houses, and 
made targets to be shot at. Charles d'Argennes, Bishop of Mans, 
raised a band of ruffians who perpetrated unutterable atrocities, 
for which the Pope made him a Cardinal in 1570. When the 
Government was arranging the terms of the Treaty of Lonjumeau, 
the Pope threatened to attack the King of France " if he made 
peace with the heretics." On the 5th July, 1568, Pius V. con- 
gratulated the Duke of Nemours for refusing to observe the con- 
ditions of the treaty, " as fatal to the Catholic religion," and 
regretted that " the great ones of the kingdom did not follow 
his example." The League of Toulouse was founded on a bull 
issued by the same Pope, for the purpose of " preparing a war 
like Matathias and the other Maccabees, * * * under the 
authority of our Holy Father.' 1 In 1569 Pius V., writing to con- 
gratulate Charles on the victory of Jarnac, bade him be " deaf 
to every prayer, and to extirpate heresy down to its smallest fibres." 
A few weeks earlier he had advised the King " to punish the 
heretics and their leaders with all severity." His letters to Anjou 
and to Catherine are in a similar unchristian strain. He also 
blamed the commander of the auxiliary force he sent to France, 
" for not obeying his orders to slay instantly every heretic that 
fell into his hands." Again, writing to congratulate the King on 
the victory of Moncontour, he exhorted Charles IX. not to screen 
the conquered from the vengeance of heaven, " for there is nothing 
more cruel than such mercy. Punish all who have taken up 
arms" — against their King? — no; but — " against the Almighty." 
He is, therefore, speaking not of rebels, but of heretics. In 
January, 1570, he strongly advised a continuance of the war, and 
when he heard of the Treaty of St. Germains, he expressed his 
" fears that God would inflict a judgment on the King and all who 



233 

•counselled the infamous negotiations." It is utterly absurd, there- 
fore, for Mr. Cobbett to assert that the Bartholomew Massacre was 
contrary to the principles of the Romish religion, when we find 
bishops, cardinals, and popes acting and writing as we have 
described. 

But these things were before the Massacre. When the news of 
that great crime reached Rome, the cannon of St. Angelo fired a 
salute, the church bells were rung, and Gregory XIII. went in 
procession to the church of St. Louis, where a Te Dewn was sung. 
An inscription was afterwards set up over the entrance of that 
church, describing Charles as an avenging angel sent from heaven 
to sweep his kingdom from heretics and secure the revival of 
religion. A medal was struck to commemorate the Massacre, and 
three frescoes were painted in the Vatican to record the victory 
of Popery over Protestantism. It is ridiculous to say these things 
were done because the Huguenots were rebels. Whence came 
this new zeal of Rome against rebellion ? Pius V. bade Charles 
"punish the heretics and their leaders with all severity;" and in a 
prayer ordered by Clement IX. to be read on 1st May, that Pope 
is described as elected to " crush the enemies of the Church." 

Gregory XIII. hastily despatched an ambassador to France with 
the Golden Rose, and with instructions to congratulate the Court ; 
but on his arrival, the Legate Orsini found the Court far less 
enthusiastic about the matter than himself. On the road he had 
halted at Lyons, and there publicly absolved all the assassins, who 
knelt down before him in the great square in front of the cathe- 
dral. He is further said to have specially complimented one of 
the principal ruffians. Rome, therefore, approved of the Massacre, 
if she did not contrive it. 

Mr. Cobbett says that " to ascribe the Massacre to the prin- 
ciples of the Catholic religion" is as " monstrous a violation of 
the truth" as to ascribe "the act of Bellingham to the principles 
of the Church of England." The cases are not at all parallel. 
If Bellingham had called for the " Gridiron" (if it was then in 
existence) or " Robinson Crusoe," would it have proved that the 
murder of Mr. Perceval was taught by those popular works ? The 
principles of the Church of England are found in the T?hirty-nine 
Articles, and none of them countenance persecution or assassina- 
tion. With a Romanist, persecution is a principle of religion ; 



234 

with tlie Church of England it was an error, and has long ceased 
to exist. With Rome it is not so ; it is a law which the Romanist 
still swears to obey, his obedience being prevented only by the 
power of the temporal legislature. But now the Romanists cry 
out that the yoice of the Pope is not the voice of the Church, 
and what he says is not binding. How comes it then that the 
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is binding? But where 
are we to find the true voice of the Church ? We are told to look 
to the decision of the General Councils. I do so, and in the 
Third Canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran, held by Pope 
Innocent III., I read that the Roman Church excommunicates and 
anathematizes every heresy, and condemns all heretics by whatever 
name they are called. The secular legislatures are to be com- 
pelled by ecclesiastical censure to exert themselves to the utmost 
to exterminate all those whom the Church defines to be heretics. 
Princes who do not obey this decree are subject to excommunica- 
tion ; and if it be notified to the Pope that the contumacy of any 
prince is continued more than a year, his vassals may be absolved 
from their allegiance, and his territory allotted to another, who shall 
exterminate heretics and maintain the faith in its purity. " Yes," 
exclaim the Romanists ; "but that was in 1215, when heresy was 
a very different thing from modern Protestantism. Besides which, 
such doctrines are obsolete." Had the persecuting principles 
become obsolete two hundred years later, when the Council of 
Constance declared that " no faith was to be kept with heretics," 
and burnt John Huss ? Had they become obsolete at the time of 
the Council of Trent, and when the creed of Pius IV. was drawn up, 
which is accepted by all Romanists as " an accurate and explicit 
summary" of the faith and doctrines now received by the Romish 
Church ? The last article but one in that creed runs thus : — " I 
also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, 
defined, and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils, 
particularly by the Holy Council of Trent," &c. The edition 
published for the use of the Irish (" faithfully translated by per- 
mission") continues the chain of evidence down to our own day : — 
" It is not to be denied that they [heretics and schismatics] are in 
the power of the Church, as those who may be judged by her, 
punished, and condemned with an anathema." The word in italics 
is not given in the English text; not because the doctrine is. 



235 

abandoned, for the word (puniantur) still remains in the latest Latin 
reprints, but because it would not do to state such a doctrine 
openly in a Protestant, that is, an heretical country. Korne is 
truly unchanged ! 

Mr. Cobbett, after justifying one of the foulest crimes upon 
record as an act of retaliatory justice, affirms that the number 
massacred in all France " amounted only to 786 persons." Surely 
that was enough ! But as usual the statement is false ; he knew 
it to be false ; and Dr. Lingard, whom he quotes and compliments 
for his " usual fairness," knew it to be false, or he would not have 
doubled that number to get " near the truth." In Paris alone the 
number of victims could not have been below 2,000. On the 
23rd of September the municipality of Paris paid twenty livres 
for burying 1,100 bodies found in the waters of the Seine; on the 
9th they had paid fifteen livres for a similar service, so that if the 
payment was proportionate to the number buried, those paid for on 
the 9th must have been 825, making for Paris alone a known 
massacre of 1,925. But we have indirect evidence that the victims 
must have been far more numerous ; many were buried in the city, 
and there is a tradition that 475 were interred near St. Gervais' 
church, and that theirs were the bones discovered in 1851. The 
blood-stained Alva says in his bulletin, that more than 3,500 were 
despatched "ina short time," and that the principal gentlemen 
were flung into the Clerks' Well. Claude Haton, an indisputable 
hater of heretics, speaks of " 7,000 persons well known," to say 
nothing of " others unknown who were thrown into the river." 
The " Neustadt Letter" carries the number to 6,000, and speaks of 
some being thrown into the river and others " in Campo Cleri- 
corcim," the Clerks' Field (Pre aux Clercs), probably meaning the 
"Well" mentioned above. In the "Art de Verifier les Dates" 
(compiled by Benedictine Monks), the number is raised to " more 
than 10,000 for the two days ;" a while even the miserable Abbe 
Caveyrac does not venture to place it below 1,000. Henri Martin 
thinks 2,000 must have perished in the first day. Now these are 
all Romish authorities. As for the number of victims in all France, 
Martin thinks the 10,000 mentioned by Papyr Masson, a panegyrist 

a The writer says that twenty noblemen of mark and about six hundred 
gentlemen perished ; and adds in a note from Chancellor de l'Hopital, that 
babes in the cradle were not spared. 



236 

of the Massacre, as far too low, and says 20,000 is " more likely." 
So much for Mr. Cobbett and his accuracy. He takes a list of 
786 persons who were named, as if it was possible to draw up 
anything like an accurate roll of the men, women, and children so 
cruelly cut off. Besides which, it is notorious that the names of 
many persons who are known to have been murdered are not to be 
found upon that list. And no mention is made of the massacre at 
Toulouse. These are matters that Cobbett might easily have 
learnt had he been so inclined. They are not hidden away in 
inaccessible manuscripts, but contained in well-known books that 
may be found in many a library. He has, however, the grace to 
say that even the number he assigns is " horrible to think of." 
But faithful to his system of justifying one crime by another, he 
adds, " not half so great as those of the English Catholics cruelly 
put to death by Elizabeth." We deny it; and challenge those 
who have circulated the slander to produce their evidence. They 
know they cannot do so, for there is none in existence, and there 
never was. Cobbett often used to say — " Throw plenty of dirt, 
some will be sure to stick;" and in his " Protestant Reformation" 
he has shown himself a first-rate adept in his own school. 

He next charges Elizabeth with " hypocrisy and impudence" 
for going into mourning when the news of the Massacre reached 
London, and afterwards desiring to marry the Duke of Anjou, one 
of the perpetrators of that bloody deed. Wrong again — as usual. 
The proposal came from France, at the end of December, 1570, 
and, therefore, preceded the St. Bartholomew Massacre by more 
than eighteen months. There is a letter of Catherine, dated 2nd 
February, 1571, full of despair lest the marriage should not come 
off; and on the 25th July of the same year, she cautiously put for- 
ward the name of her younger son, the Duke of Alencon, in case 
Anjou should refuse. The formal proposal was made in April or 
May, 1572. All the eagerness was on the side of France. The 
English and the French plenipotentiaries — especially the former — 
were in great trepidation lest the refusal should come from 
Elizabeth. The renewal of the proposals for a matrimonial 
alliance after the Massacre came also from France, but the pro- 
posed husband was Alencon, not Anjou. And this is how a writer 
who professes to have no other aim than truth ,< acts up to his 
professions. He is ignorant of the very A B C of history. The 



237 

charge of hypocrisy falls to the ground -with the fables upon which 
it was based. 

There are still many charges left untouched. A reckless writer 
may make more slanderous statements in a page than can be 
refuted in a volume ; and we have- already given more importance 
to Mr. Cobbett's calumnies than they deserve. In a court of 
justice, when a witness is convicted of falsehood in the funda- 
mental portions of his evidence, no one thinks it worth while to 
track him down in every instance. We have shown that Cobbett is 
not to be believed on the main points. We have proved that Queen 
Elizabeth did not stir up the civil war in France ; that Coligny 
did not turn Protestant through hatred to Guise ; that Elizabeth 
did not find the money for Guise's murder, and that Poltrot was 
not encouraged by Coligny ; that Francis of Guise was not the 
patriot Cobbett represents him to be ; that Beza was not an in- 
famous man ; that Coligny was not a hypocrite, and that he did not 
worm himself into the King's favour ; that Elizabeth did not seek 
Anjou in marriage after the Massacre ; that Rome did approve of 
that most detestable crime, and that her doctrines necessarily lead 
to it. For each of our statements we have given our authority, or 
shown where it may be found. This, Mr. Cobbett wisely avoided 
doing. We have no doubt as to the verdict, when the English 
public have read the evidence on both sides. 



CHAPTER IX. 

A CHAPTER ON IRELAND. 

Although the title of Mr. Cobbett's " History " includes 
" Ireland," I have not entered on that branch of the subject 
further than making one or two passing remarks, as the question 
regarding that unhappy country is purely political ; and, indeed, 
Mr. Cobbett himself only incidentally refers to Ireland. Dr. 
Murray, Archbishop of Roman Catholics in Dublin, in his exami- 
nation before a Committee of the House of Commons, in anticipa- 
tion of the (so-called) Emancipation Act of 1829, a deposed on 
oath that, " he had not the least reason to think that in the minds 
of any part of the Roman Catholics there existed any hope or 
any wish to interfere with the temporal possessions of the Estab- 
lished Church, or to partake of any part of the wealth that it 
enjoyed * * * and was prepared to give the most full and entire 
assurance on the subject by any declaration that might be required 
of the Irish Roman Bishops." He admitted that ". there was a 
general feeling among [Roman] Catholics as well as Protestants, 
that the Establishment is unnecessarily rich ; but he did not 
observe any feelings in [Roman] Catholics, as [Roman] Catholics, 
to exert themselves for its curtailment more than Protestants, but 
that feeling ivas rather an opinion of political economy than a reli- 
gious feeling. As religionists they had no particular feeling, and 
it was their disposition to leave the matter entirely with the 
legislature." Again, Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Roman Catholics in 
Kildare and Leighlin, addressed a letter in 1826 to Lord Liver- 
pool, entitled " Essay on the Catholic Claims," in which he says 
that, on removal of the disqualifications under which Romanists 
laboured, "the country would settle down into a habit of quiet, 
and that they would no longer feel the jealousy which they then 
felt against the clergy of the Established Church, because that 
jealousy arose chiefly from the unrelaxed efforts which they had 
almost universally made to defeat their claims. They would view 
them then, if those claims were granted, as brethren labouring in 
a See Phelan and O'Sullivan's " Report," 22nd March, 1825, p: 237. 



239 

the same vineyard with themselves, seeking to promote the interests 
of their common country." Fair words and fair promises these, 
but which have been wholly belied by subsequent events. In his 
letter to Lord Wellesley, in 1823, p. 46, he says : — " We respect 
the Church of England in general, my Lord ; we prize her Liturgy ; 
I declare, fully, my hostility is not to the doctrine of that Church." 
In p. 302 of the "Essay" above quoted, Dr. Doyle gives the 
declaration and oath taken and signed on the 26th January, 
1826, by thirty Komish Irish Bishops, including the titular Arch- 
bishops of Dublin, Armagh, and Tuam. He says : — " The [Roman] 
Catholics of Ireland, far from claiming any right or title to for- 
feited lands, resulting from any right, title, or interest which their 
^ancestors may have had therein, declare upon oath : That they 
will defend to the utmost of their power the settlement and 
arrangement of property in this country, as established by the 
laws now in being. They also disclaim, disavow, and solemnly 
abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment 
for the purpose of substituting a [Roman] Catholic Establishment 
in its stead. And, further, they swear that they will not exercise 
any privilege to which they are or may be entitled to disturb or 
weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government in 
Ireland." a 

It will be seen, therefore, that the question is professedly 
political. But as Mr. Cobbett introduces the subject of alleged 
Protestant robberies of Irish properties, and the alleged persecu- 
tion of Irish Romanists under Elizabeth and the Protector Crom- 
well, I cannot allow the subject to pass without a few observations 
in reply. 

Under the chapter on Elizabeth, Mr. Cobbett says : — u As to 
Ireland, where the estates of the convents, and where the Church 
property had been confiscated in the same way as in England, and 
where the greater distance of the people from the focus of power 

a It was on the faitli of this oath that the so-called t! Emancipation Act" 
of 1829 was granted, but which has since been repudiated by every Komish 
priest in Ireland. In England, Dr. Manning (calling himself Archbishop 
of Westminster), on the 12th April, 1868, requested that the congregations 
of the Romish churches and chapels in London should be invited to sign 
petitions to the House of Commons in favour of Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions 
for the Disendowment and Disestablishment of the Dish Church* So much 
for Romish sincerity ! 



240 

and apostacy and fanaticism had rendered it more difficult to 
effect their ' conversion ' at the point of the bayonet, or by the 
halter or the rack ; as to this portion of her dominions, her reign 
was almost one unbroken series of robberies and butcheries. One- 
greedy and merciless minion after another was sent to goad that 
devoted people into acts of desperation ; and that, too, not only 
for the obvious purpose, but for the avowed purpose, of obtaining 
a pretence for new confiscations. The ' Reformation ' had, from 
its very outset, had plunder written on its front; but, as to 
Ireland, it was all plunder from the crown of its head to the 
sole of its foot. This horrible lynx-like she-tyrant could not 
watch each movement of the Catholics there as she did in 
England ; she could not so harass them in detail ; she could find 
there no means of executing her dreadful police; and therefore 
she murdered them in masses. She sent over those parsons whose 
successors are there to the present day. The ever blood-stained 
sword secured them the tithes and the Church lands ; but even that 
blood-stained sword could not then, and never did, though at one 
time wielded by the unsparing and double distilled Protestant 
Cromwell, obtain them congregations. However, she jxlanted, she 
watered with rivers of blood, and her long reign saw take fast root 
in the land, that tree, the fruit of which the unfortunate Irish taste 
to this hour ; and which will, unless prevented by more wise and 
more just measures than appear to have been yet suggested, finally 
prove the overthrow of England herself." a 

Again, b he says, that the Irish people "had been plundered in pre- 
cisely the same manner as the English people had been ; they had 
been plunged into misery by precisely the same means, and under 
precisely the same hypocritical pretences. * * * Base and cruel 
plunderers ! * * * They found it impossible to make Englishmen 
compel one another to live in a state of three-fourths starvation. 
But, they had England to raise armies in to send to effect this purpose 
in Ireland, especially when those English armies were urged on by 
promise of plunder, and were (consisting as they did of Pro- 
testants) stimulated by motives as powerful, or nearly so, as the 
love of plunder itself. Thus it was, that Ireland was pillaged 
without the smallest chance of even the restoration which the 
English obtained ; and thus have they, down unto this our day^. 
a 324. b 334, 335. 



241 

been a sort of outcasts in their own country, being stripped of all 
the worldly goods that God and nature allotted them, and having 
received not the smallest pittance in return." 

And passing from Elizabeth to Oliver Cromwell, he says : — 
" Cromwell (whose reign we may consider as having lasted from 
1649 to 1659), therefore, though he soon made the Parliament a 
mere instrument in his hands ; though he was tyrannical and 
bloody ; though he ruled with a rod of iron ; though he was a 
real tyrant, was nothing more than the ' natural issue,' as ' maiden ' 
Betsy would have called him, of the ' body ' of the ' Eeformation.' 
He was cruel towards the Irish ; he killed them without mercy ; 
but, except in the act of selling 20,000 of them to the West Indies 
as slaves, in what did he treat them worse than Charles, to whom 
and to whose descendants they were loyal from first to last ? And, 
certainly, even that sale did not equal in point of atrociousness 
many of the acts committed against them during the three last 
Protestant reigns ; and, in point of odiousness and hatefulness, it 
fell far short of the ingratitude of the Established Church, in the 
reign of Charles II." a 

This is literally all we have on the subject of the history of 
the Eeformation in Ireland in Mr. Cobbett's book ! The subject 
has nothing whatever to do with the Reformation, properly so- 
called. But what is the true version of the circumstances which 
Mr. Cobbett attempts to describe ? Ireland enjoyed an Episcopal 
Church wholly independent of Rome up to the year 1171, the date 
of the first English invasion under Henry II. Irish Bishops were 
neither elected nor confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. The Irish 
Kings, as in England the Norman Kings, clown to the beginning 
of the twelfth century appointed their Bishops. b It will be re- 
membered this right of investiture was the subject of contest 
between the Popes and Kings of England in the twelfth century, 
and resulted in the murder of a Becket, and the subsequent humi- 
liation of Henry II. 

No Papal Legate ever appeared in Ireland to exercise any spiritual 
jurisdiction in that country until the twelfth century. " Gilbert, 

a 362. 

b See Ussher's " Religion of the Ancient Irish," pp. 78, 79. Dublin, 1815. 
c See Dr. Lanigan's " History/' vol. ii, p. 72. Dublin, 1822 ; aud see 
Ussher, as in last note, p. 74. 

B 



242 

Bishop of Limerick, in the twelfth century, was the first who dis- 
charged the duties of Apostolic Legate in Ireland." These are 
the words of the great St. Bernard in his " Life of St. Malachy," a 
and the Romish annalist Cardinal Baronius asserted that, for the 
latter half of the sixth century, " the Bishops of Ireland were all 
schismatics, separated from the Church of Rome." b 

At the same time, all the Irish Romish historians and writers, 
Dr. Lanigan, O'Halloran, McGeoghegan, Dr. O'Connor, &c, admit 
that even before the days of St. Patrick of the fourth century, 
Christianity had been preached and practised in Ireland. I need 
scarcely dwell on the apocryphal stories told of Celestine having 
sent St. Patrick to Ireland, and other similar supposed missions 
from Rome ; they are all exploded as fabulous. c " All ecclesiastical 

a Oper., torn, i, p. 674, Benedictine edition. 

b See " Baronii Annales," ad an. 566, torn, vii, p. 557 ; and an. 604, 
torn, viii, pp. 195, 196. Antwerp, 1611. 

c Komanists have tried bard to associate Rome with the early Irish 
Church, but all is apocryphal or misquoted. Columba, in a.d. 512, took 
a mission to the highlands of Scotland ; and Aidan and Finan were, ac- 
cording to Bede, sent to convert the Northumbrians in England. Virgilius, 
or Feargal, an Irish missionary, was the first Bishop of Saltzburg. But 
there is not the slightest evidence that the Roman See or Church had any 
part or authority in these missions. Kilian was another missionary, to 
whom various periods are assigned, from the seventh to the eleventh century; 
as a missionary at Wurtzburg he is said to have been under the direction of 
Rome, but as he had left Ireland long before he commenced his missionary 
work, this case does not apply to Rome's supposed jurisdiction in Ireland. 
I am fully acquainted with the isolated sentence ordinarily referred to as a 
canon of St. Patrick : — " Si quae causae oriantur in hac insula* ad sedem 
Apostolicam referantur," by which it is supposed that appeal to Rome was 
here directed ; whereas, presuming the canon to be genuine, there is every 
probability St. Patrick was referring to the Apostolic See of Armagh. St. 
Columbanus, of the sixth and seventh centuries, is often cited as submitting 
to the authority of the Bishops of Rome. He may have done so, but it was 
only after he had migrated from Ireland and settled at Bobbio, in the 
province of Milan, in Italy. But the writings attributed to St. Columbanus, 
according to the eminent Jesuit historian of the French Church, M. 
Langueval ["Hist, de L'Eglise Gal.," torn, iii, p. 492. 17 An. 612], censures 
them as most heterodox, and as utterly incompatible with the modern 
doctrine of Papal supremacy. In fact, M. Langueval, referring to a passage 
in Columbanus's letter, addressed to the Bishop of Rome, observes: — " This 
is saying plainly enough that he would not submit to the decision he asked 
for" [i.e. , Pope Gregory's decision], " unless it agreed with his own decision." 
[Ibid, p. 371.] Dr. Lanigan and others, when they quote this letter, only 



243 

authority in Ireland had, until about four years before the accession 
of Henry II., been exercised by her own prelates." a 

Ireland was, in fact, both civilly and ecclesiastically, independent 
of Borne, as well as England, until a.d. 1171. In a.d. 1155, 
Henry II. conceived the idea of making a conquest of Ireland, and 
to legalise his acts he obtained a bull from Pope Adrian IV. b A 
: bargain was struck between them. Henry was to raise an army 
and make the conquest under the " Apostolic Benediction " of the 
Pope, who enjoined on him " as a Catholic prince, to enlarge the 
borders of the Church, teaching the truth of the Christian faith 
to the ignorant and rude; extirpating the roots of vice from the 
field of the Lord." And after asserting that Ireland belonged to 
the Roman Church, Adrian declared that, " therefore, he was the 
more solicitous to propagate the righteous plantation of faith in 
that island, and the branch acceptable to God." The bull then 
proceeds as follows : — 

"You, then, my dear son in Christ, have signified to us your 
desire to enter into the island of Ireland, in order to reduce the 
people to obedience unto the laws, and to extirpate the plants of 
vice ; and that you are willing to pay from each [house] a yearly 
pension of one penny to St. Peter, and that you will preserve the 
rights of the churches of this land whole and inviolate. "We, there- 
fore, with that grace and acceptance suited to your pious and 
laudable design, and favourably assenting to your petition, do hold 
it good and acceptable that, for extending the borders of the Church, 
restraining the progress of vice ; for the correction of manners, 
the planting of virtue, and the increase of religion, you enter this 
island, and execute therein whatever shall pertain to the honour of 
God and welfare of the land ; and that the people of this land 
receive you honourably, and reverence you as their lord, the 
rights of their churches still remaining sacred and inviolate, and 
saving to St. Peter the annual pension of one penny from every 
house. If, then, you be resolved to carry the design you have con- 
give it in part. The entire letter may be seen in " The Catholic Layman," 
in p. 65, of the 19th June, 1856. Dublin. 

a See Leland's " History of Ireland," vol. i, cap. i. London, 1773. 

b O'Halloran, a learned Irish Komamst, gives a translation of this bull in 
his " History of Ireland" (vol. ii, p. 360, London, 1778), as an authentic 
document. 

r 2 



244 

ceived into effectual execution, study to form this nation to virtue 
and manners, and labour by yourself and others you shall judge 
meet for this work in faith, word, and life, that the Church may 
be there adorned ; that the religion of the Christian faith may be 
planted and grow up ; and that all things pertaining to the honour 
of God and the salvation of souls be so ordered, that you may be 
entitled to the fulness of heavenly reward from God, and obtain a 
glorious renown on earth through all ages." a 

Henry II. sent John of Salisbury to Eome to seek from the 
Pope the above concession ; and it was he who obtained the bull. 
We have the fact recorded by himself in a book he wrote, detailing 
the event as follows : — 

" At my entreaties, he conceded and gave Ireland to the illustrious 
King of England, Henry II., to be possessed by an hereditary 
right, as his letters [the Pope's] at this day witness. For, of 
ancient right, all islands are said to belong to the Roman Church by 
virtue of the donation of Constantine, ivho founded and endowed her 
[i.e., the Eoman Church]. He [the Pope] sent also by me a 
golden ring, decorated with a very fine emerald, with which ring, 
the investiture of law in conveying Ireland, should be made ; and 
the same ring is as yet ordered to be preserved in the public 
archives of the court." b 

It is well known that the " Donation of Constantine " is a Popish 
forgery. Dr. Lanigan, in his " Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, " 
thus comments on this alleged " Donation" : — " This nonsense of 

a Dr. Lanigan, an Irish Roman Catholic priest, in his able and learned 
" Ecclesiastical History of Ireland," of this bull says : — " Adrian's bull is of 
so unwarrantable and unjustifiable a nature, that some writers could not 
bring themselves to believe that he issued it, and have endeavoured to prove 
it a forgeiy. But their efforts were of no avail, and never did there exist a 
more real or authentic document." . Vol. iv, p. 164. Dublin, 1822. Dr. 
Lanigan says the reasons given in the bull are "hypocritical reasons." 
p. 160. 

b " Ad preces meas illustri regi Anglorum Henrico II. concessit et dedit 
Hiberniam jure hasreditario possidendam ; sicut literse ipsius testantur in 
hodiernam diem. Nam omnes insulas de jure antiquo, ex donatione Con- 
stantini qui earn fundavit et dotavit, dicuntur ad Komanam ecclesiam 
pertinere. Annulum quoque per me transmisit aureum, smaragdo optimo 
decoratum. quo fieret investitura juris in gerenda Hibernia : idemque adhuc 
annulus in curiali archio publico custodiri jussus est." — Metalogicus, lib. iv, 
c. ult, pp. 210, 241. Paris, 1610. 



245 

the Pope's being the head owner of all Christian islands had been 
partially announced to the world in a bull of (Pope) Urban II., 
dated a.d. 1091, in which, on disposing of the island of Corsica, 
he said that the Emperor Constantine had given the islands to St. 
Peter and his vicars." a 

Henry was not able to carry out his ambitious designs on Ire- 
land during Adrian's lifetime, so, seventeen years after he had pro- 
cured the bull of concession, he obtained from Alexander III., his 
successor, another bull, which was in the following terms : — b 

" Alexander, Bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his 
most dear son in Christ, the illustrious King of England, health 
and apostolical benediction. 

" Forasmuch as these things, which have been, on good reasons, 
granted by our predecessors, deserve to be confirmed in the fullest 
manner, and considering the grant of the dominion of the realm of 
Ireland by the venerable Pope Adrian, we, pursuing his footsteps, 
•do ratify and confirm the same (reserving to St. Peter, and to the 
holy Roman Church, as well in England as in Ireland, the yearly 
pension of one penny from every house), provided that the abomina- 
tions of the land being removed, that barbarous people, Christians 
only in name, may, by your means, be reformed, and their lives and 
conversation mended, so that their disordered Church being thus 
reduced to regular discipline, that nation may, with the name of 
Christian, be so in act and deed. Given at Rome, in the year of 
salvation, 1172." 

This is complimentary to Ireland, the land of saints ! It was a 
good commercial speculation for the Pope, nevertheless ! 

Henry, thereupon, under the patronage and sanction of two 
Popes, commenced his crusade, conquered and took possession of 
Ireland, and, as far as we can learn, the people generally were well 
pleased with his appearance among them. This was the origin 
of England's rule in Ireland ; and " the first ecclesiastical tribute 
that came into the Pope's coffers out of that country was the 

a Dr. Lanigan's " Ecclesiastical History of Ireland," vol. iv, p. ICO 
Dublin, 1822. The text of this "Donation 5 ' is to be found in Merlin's 
" Concilia," p. 56. Colon. 1530 ; and in the " Patrologiae," of Abbe Migne, 
torn, exxx, col. 215. Paris, 1853. 

b See O'Halloran's "History of Ireland," vol, ii, p. 3G8. London, 1778 ; 
and Dr. Lanigan's "Eccl. Hist, of Ireland," vol. iv, p. 223. Dublin, 1822. 



246 

voluntary offer of Henry II." a " Little did Henry foresee, in the- 
blindness of his ambition, the perplexity he was to experience from 
that power he now contributed to aggrandize, or the heavy weight 
of oppression with which it was to fall upon his own head." b 

Irish Romanists onght to be the last to quarrel with the alleged 
usurpation ; but it is a fact worth recording, and pointed out by a 
learned priest of the Roman Church, Dr. O'Connor — and for proofs 
I refer to his work, entitled " Columbanus ad Hibernos " c — that 
King James I. was the legitimate descendant alike of the ancient 
kings of Ireland and of the kings of England. The crowns of 
England and Ireland were lawfully united on his head by legitimate 
descent ; and since his day the union of the crowns of England 
and Ireland has rested no longer on forgery or violence, but on a 
lawful title. Our present most Gracious Sovereign is the descen- 
dant of the old kings of Ireland, of Heber and Heremon, as well as 
of the kings of England. 

The learned and accurate Archbishop Ussher, with reference to 
the religion of the Irish at that time, said : — " As far as I can 
collect by such records of the* former ages as have come into my 
hands (either manuscript or printed), the religion professed by the 
ancient bishops,. priests, monks, and other Christians in this land 
[Ireland] was, for substance, the very same with that which now, 
by public authority, is maintained therein against the foreign 
doctrine brought in thither in later times by the Bishops of 
Rome's followers." d 

It was at the Synod of: Cashed in 1172, that the Irish Bishops, 
under the influence of Henry II., first acknowledged the supremacy 
of the Bishop of Rome. Many, however, held aloof. But it was 
not until the middle of the thirteenth century that the Pope 
appointed an Archbishop in Ireland. 

I need not trace the history of Ireland from Henry II. to 
Henry VIII; ; the subject has no bearing on the " Reformation." 
The feuds, reprisals, and rebellions are notorious historical facts. 

a Ussher's "Beligion of the Ancient Irish," p. 120. Dublin, 1815. 

b Leland's " History of Ireland," vol. i, pp. 5-8. London, 1773. 

c Or, <; An Historical Address on Foreign Influence," No. 2, p. xlvi^ 
Buckingham, 1812. 

d Ussher's " Discourse on the Eeligion anciently professed by the Irish; 
and British." Dublin, reprint, 1815, see first six chapters* 



247 

It was a strife of race against race. There was then more bitter 
feeling between the two races than eyer has been since the Reforma- 
tion. English rule may have been severe and Unjust and arbitrary. 
The hatred between the two races appeared implacable, and the 
ferocity from time to time exhibited is something beyond descrip- 
tion or conception. In fact, from the first colonization, as it were, 
of Ireland by the English to the days of Elizabeth, there was no 
settled peace, but perpetual discords, aggressions, reprisals, re- 
bellions, and treasons. 

With regard to the confiscation of monastic and other eccle- 
siastical properties, which is laid to the door of " Reformation 
robbers," I have already shown a that these confiscations were 
effected by an Irish Parliament when Ireland was iii revolt against 
England, and the property went into lay [Romish] hands. 
The title of the "plunderers" was afterwards confirmed by the 
same bull which in Mary's reign confirmed the titles of the 
appropriated monastic properties in England. 5 In the reign of 
Henry VIII. the Irish Church abjured the supremacy of the Pope, 
and accepted the Royal supremacy in 1539, c and continued to do 
so during the reign of Edward VI. She submitted for a time 
under Mary to Papal rule, but finally abjured it again under 
Elizabeth in 1560. The Irish Royal Supremacy and Uniformity 
Act (2 Eliz. cap. i. & ii.) was passed not only by the " Lords 
Spiritual and Temporal," but also." by the Commons of Ireland." 
On the accession of Elizabeth to the throne, all the Irish Bishops, 
twenty to twenty-two in number, with only two exceptions (Walsh, 
Bishop of Meath, and Lercun, Bishop of Kildare) — Armagh was 
then vacant — remained in their sees, and the priests generally in 
their parishes, retained their revenues and tithes and adopted the 
Reformed Religion. d The people attended their parish churches 
for the first eleven years of Elizabeth's reign. d The English 
Liturgy was tacitly adopted by them with all the forms of the 
Reformed Church. The episcopal succession, therefore, has con- 
tinued in a direct descent in the Reformed Irish Church from a 

a See ante, p. 121. 

b See ante, p. 123, and p. 155. 

c See " Calendar of State Papers," vol. viii, Henry VIII, a.d. 1539. 

a " Tracts of the Irish Archajological Society,*' vol. ii, p. 134. 

e See the " Ecclesiastical History of Ireland," by the Rev. Richard 
Murray, D.D, 2nd edition, London, 1848, cap. xiii, p. 303, et seq. 



248 

date anterior to the time of St. Patrick, of the fifth century. In 
the face of these facts Mr. Cobbett has the assurance to declare 
that, " the immense property of the Catholic Church in Ireland, 
in which, mind, the poor had a share, was taken from the Catholics 
and given to the Protestant bishops and parsons." a 

The judicious and beneficent rule of Elizabeth began soon to be 
felt over the island. The execution of equal justice, which had for a 
long time been confined within the limits of the Pale, now extended 
itself to the counties. Abuses were checked and free schools were 
erected throughout the kingdom. The counties were now reduced 
into shires, and sheriffs and other ministers of justice instituted for 
the better government of the provinces ; and for a while the civilising 
effects of the Reformation were beginning to be felt. But these 
reforms were not in accordance with the spirit and genius of the 
Irish people. Plots, rebellions, and treasons were hatched and 
soon carried into effect, fostered by foreign -influenced Jesuit 
priests. 

In 1561 was the first rebellion in Ireland during Elizabeth's 
reign, under Shan O'Neal ; but which was soon put down by an 
English force of 500 men, and he submitted. The Queen dealt 
mercifully with the rebels. Several of the Lords who had joined 
in the rebellion were restored to the jDossession of their lands, and 
others allowed to return to their commands in the country, and 
some even were raised to honors. But these lenient measures 
were of no avail ; the hereditary hatred, transmitted from genera- 
tion to generation, was not to be eradicated by forbearance and 
gentle treatment. In 1565, Elizabeth put down the civil war 
between the Earls of Desmond and Ormond. In 1569, there was 
another rebellion under the direct influence of the Pope and of the 
Spanish nation. b The political prisoners were, notwithstanding, 
treated with lenity, and many restored to liberty. In 1570, there 
was the rebellion of O'Brien, Earl of Twomund ; and Pope Pius Y., 
in the same year, entered into a compact with Thomas Stewkley to 
send an army of 3,000 Italians to invade Ireland and aid the rebels. 
In 1573, there was another rebellion, and again in 1578. In 1599, 



b See Camden's " Annals," or "History of the Life of Queen Elizabeth," 
p. 117. London, 1635. . 

c See Watson's " Considerations," reprint, London, 1831, p. 50. 



249 

Hugh, Earl of Tyrone, although put in a post of trust in command 
of troops, excited a desperate rebellion. He induced many in- 
fluential persons to join him, and even sought aid from Spain. In 
1600, Clement VIII., haying failed to obtain any success in 
England, on the dispersion of the "Invincible Armada" took 
advantage of the rebellious movement of Sir Owen in Ireland, and 
issued a bull — with an " Apostolic benediction and plenary indul- 
gence [to the rebels], usually granted by his predecessors to those 
who undertook a crusade for recovering the Holy Land from the 
Saracens to the Turks," a — directed to the " Papal bishops, the tem- 
poral nobility, and commons of Ireland," inciting them to open 
rebellion. The rebellion of Tyrone was suppressed after much 
effusion of blood, and at great cost to the country. Insurrections 
upon this spread throughout the land, and Jesuit intrigue and 
" foreign-influenced priests " fanned the flame, and this, again, was 
followed up by the rebellion and the dreadful barbarities of 1641 
perpetrated on the inoffensive Protestants. 

Before, however, I proceed to note the dreadful results of these 
massacres, I would wish to lay before my readers the deliberate 
opinion expressed by Dr. Charles O'Connor, a priest of the Roman 
Church, on the alleged severities and persecutions in Ireland 
during the reign of Elizabeth, on which Mr. Cobbett dwells with 
so much assumed indignation. Dr. O'Connor says : — 

" Let us not be the dupes of those who would impose upon us a 
belief that the fanaticism of one party, or the superstition of 
another, occasioned the crimes or the calamities of either. It is an 
indisputable fact that more flagrant crimes were committed whilst 
both nations were Romish, than after they had made religion a 
party in their quarrel, and pressed into the service of their passions 
those very principles by which their passions are condemned. 

" In the remonstrance addressed to Pope John XXII. , the Irish 
chieftains, after stating how iniquitously Adrian IV., an English- 
man, had delivered up Ireland by a certain form of words to 
Henry II., contrary to all law and justice, proceed to state that, 
even supposing that donation to have been valid ab initio, yet, as 
the English had violated the conditions on which the Pope had 

a See Collier's' "Eccl. History," vol. ii, p. 664. London, 1714, for the 
text of this bull ; and it is given also in Townsend's " Accusation of History 
against the Church of Eorne," pp. 300-431, London, 1845. 



250 

allowed them to invade Ireland by the most infamous etuelties, all 
obligations on the Pope's part, as well as on theirs, must be now 
at an end. Arrogating to themselves the property of every place 
on which we can stamp the figure of our feet, the English invaders, 
through an excess of the most profound ignorance or insanity — 
scarcely conceivable — dare to assert that not a single inch of Ireland 
is ours, but, by right, entirely their own. Hence the implacable 
hatred and exterminating carnage which is perpetually carried on 
between us. Hence our continual hostilities, detestable treacheries, 
bloody reprisals, numberless massacres, in which, since their 
invasion, to this day, more than 50,000 men have perished on 
both sides, exclusive of those who perished by famine, captivity, 
nightly marauding, and a thousand disorders, which it is impossible 
to remedy, on account of the anarchy in which we live — an anarchy 
which, alas ! is tremendous, not only to the State, but also to the 
Church of Ireland, the ministers of which are daily exposed, not 
only to the loss of the frail and transitory things of this world, but 
also to the loss of the solid blessings of eternity. 

" They thus enumerate the atrocious laws, principles, and 
practices of the English settlers towards them, much more merciless 
and inhuman than any that have been practised under cover of religion 
since the days of Elizabeth, and they conclude that all hope of peace 
between us is, therefore, completely destroyed." a 

These rebellions left the country at Elizabeth's death in a most 
deplorable state, and King James I. took every means to establish 
order and civilization. He began his reign with clemency and for- 
bearance. He restored the confiscated properties to the natives 
and Komanists, and hoped by these means to bring them back to 
obedience and affection for the Crown of England. It has ever 
been a favourite theme to inveigh against the English for having 
dispossessed the Romish jn-oprietors, and for having divided the 
spoils between the Protestant colonists ; in fact, such is the burthen 
of Mr. Cobbett's tale. But here, again, let me bring in evidence 
the testimony of the same Roman priest, Dr. O'Connor, who has 
ever inveighed against Jesuit intrigues and " foreign-influenced 
priests " in his unhappy country. He testifies as follows : — 

" Now, I maintain that the forfeitures of Ulster were the con- 

a " Columbanus ad Hibernos : or, An Historical Address on Foreign In- 
fluence," pp. 20-22. Buckingham, 1812. 



251 

sequences, not the causes, of the rebellions ; that Tyrone, Tyrconnel, 
Maguire, and O'Dogherty had repeatedly violated their oath of 
allegiance, that they could no longer be credited ; that those Irish 
who were not notoriously involved in their treasons, were not 
expelled ; that the forfeited lands amounted, by Watson's, 
Chichester's, and Pynnar's surveys, to two millions of acres, and 
that not more than 250,682 were disposed of to the new planters, of 
whom many thousands were Roman Catholics ! Lord Castlehaven was 
one of them, and he planted 9,000 acres with 3,000 Roman Irish, 
under twenty gentlemen. King James granted the whole barony 
of Maghera Stefana (6,480 acres) in 1611 to Connor Eoe Maguire, 
the grandfather of that very Lord Maguire who was one of the 
leading conspirators of 1641, allowing him, also, a pension of £200 
a year for life ; and these lands, with considerable privileges and 
patronage annexed to them, and a pension for life of £100 a year, 
were confirmed in June 1627, to his son Brian, who was then 
created a Peer of Ireland. Sir Phelim O'Neil of Kinnaird's 
grandfather had a grant, 20th June, 1605, of the entire territory 
called Gage's County, and all that territory was confirmed to him- 
self by a new patent, dated 6th May, 1629. 

" All the temperate and rational Catholic writers of this period 
condemn the conduct of such foreign-influenced scribblers as Father 
Conn, F. Geoghagan, O'Ferrall, the treacherous Enos — who be- 
trayed Waterford to Cromwell, O' Sullivan, John Ponce, &c, as 
rebellious, faithless, arrogant, and un-Catholic in the extreme." a 

Let it be known that Mr. Cobbett has derived all his informa- 
tion and alleged historical facts from that same tainted and con- 
demned Romish source denounced by Dr. O'Connor ! 

Tyrone fled the country to Spain, and happily did not return. 

Under James' rule Ireland began to show signs of vitality. The 
British settlers were now greatly on the increase. 

Charles I., on the application of the Irish Parliament, issued a 
commission to make an investigation of certain grievances, and 
afterwards he placed the government in the hands of Sir John 
Borlace and Sir William Parsons, men esteemed for their wisdom 
and great integrity. They abated certain abuses, to the appa- 
rent general satisfaction of the people. In May, 1641, the Earl 

* Dr. Charles O'Connor's " Historical Address," &c., pp. 206-298. 
Buckingham, 1812. 



252 

of Leicester was appointed Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland. The 
Romanists now enjoyed the free exercise of their religion through- 
out the kingdom according to the doctrines of the Church of 
Rome. They had their titular archbishops and bishops, priests, 
&c, who now returned in great numbers from Spain and Italy, 
and from other foreign parts ; and all of whom carried out their 
avocation without restraint. According to all appearances the 
ancient animosities of races appeared to have subsided ; and forty 
years had passed in comparative quiet and enjoyment of the 
beneficent effects of liberal treatment. Intermarriages between 
the races were frequent. As a fact the British settlers were now 
so much esteemed for their industry and orderly conduct that 
Romish proprietors, Sir Phelim O'Neil himself among others, 
would even dispossess the natives in order to procure English 
tenants ! It was believed that peace and tranquillity would con- 
tinue throughout the kingdom. The army was almost entirely 
■disbanded, and the arms returned to Dublin Castle. This was the 
state of the country previous to the great rebellion. 

We now come to the year 1641, ever memorable in the annals 
of history for the great rebellion, which has for ever brought dis- 
grace and infamy on Roman Catholics in Ireland and on Irish 
Papists. 

" While in this great calm," writes an historian of the period,* 
"the British continued in a most deep security under the assurance 
of the blessed peace of the land ; while all things were carried out 
with great temper and moderation in the present government, and 
all men sate pleasantly enjoying the comfortable fruits of their 
own labors, without the least thought or apprehension of either 
tumults or other troubles, the differences between his Majesty's 
■subjects and his subjects of Scotland being about this time fairly 
composed and settled — there broke out upon the 23rd of October, 
1641, a most desperate and formidable rebellion, an universal 
defection and general revolt, wherein not only all the mere Irish 

a " The Irish Rebellion : or, A History of the Beginnings and First 
Progress of the General Rebellion raised within the Kingdom of Ireland, 
upon the 23rd October, 1641. Together with the Barbarous Cruelties and 
Bloody Massacres which Ensued thereupon." By Sir John Temple, Knight, 
Master of the Bolls, and one of His Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council 
within the Kingdom of Ireland. 1616. A second edition was published in 
1G79. The documentary evidence given in this book is most important. 



253 

but almost all the old English that adhered to the Church of Rome 
were totally involved." * * * tl A rebellion so execrable in itself, 
so odious to God and the whole world, as no age, no kingdom, no 
jDeople can parallel the horrid cruelties, the abominable murders 
that have been without number, as well as without mercy, com- 
mitted upon the British inhabitants throughout the land, of what 
sex or age, of what quality or condition, soever they were." 

To read Mr. Cobbett's history of this period, one would suppose 
that the murders and butcheries were the work of the Protestant 
Reformers. Not one word is uttered of this rebellion and its 
dreadful results; but he lays the retributive justice, following on 
this rebellion, to the desire of plunder, and asserts that Cromwell and 
his myrmidons came down like a wolf on the fold, and enriched 
themselves at the expense of a peaceable and unoffending peasantry ! 
Cobbett could not be ignorant of the dreadful nature of this 
rebellion of 1641, though he wholly suppresses every vestige of 
it. If we read no other history than Mr. Cobbett's, we should be 
in profound ignorance of that dreadful, cowardly revolt of the 
Irish Papists ! 

I propose in a few extracts, from accredited writers, to give some 
description of the proceedings of the infuriated natives — Mr. 
Cobbett's "peaceable peasantry" — goaded on, as is universally 
admitted, by their priests and "foreign-influenced emissaries." 

Clarendon, in his " History of the Rebellion," a gives the 
following general view of the subject. He says : — " A general 
insurrection of the Irish spread itself over the whole country, in 
such an inhuman and barbarous manner, that there were forty or 
fifty thousand of the English Protestants murdered before the?/ 
suspected themselves to be in danger, or could provide for their 
defence." 

Again, King, Archbishop of Dublin, who wrote very shortly 
after these transactions took place, says : — 

" It is well known to the world, and many thousands yet alive, 
that in the year 1641 there was a most bloody massacre committed 
in this kingdom [Ireland] on the Protestants by their neighbours 
the Papists, in which some hundred thousands perished, and that 
not one Protestant whom they spared without being robbed and 

a See vol. viii, p. 9. Edition, Oxford, 1826. 



254 

plundered of all he had, if not stripped and turned out naked to 
the extremities of a cold and desolate country. " a 

Sir John Temple, a contemporary historian, says that, " the 
priests had now charmed the Irish and laid such bloody impressions 
in them, as it was held, according to the maxims they had received, 
a mortal sin to give any manner of relief or protection to the 
English." 

The result, however, of the influence of the Pope's interference 
and Jesuit intrigue in exciting the Roman Catholic Irish to 
massacre the unarmed Protestant colonists, is thus given by 
Russell in his " History of Modern Europe." b 

" They began with seizing the houses, cattle, and goods of the 
unwary English and Scottish settlers, whom they hated on account 
of their religion, and envied for their riches and prosperity. 
After rapacity had fully exerted itself, cruelty began its opera- 
tions ; a general massacre commenced of the English Protestants, 
now defenceless, and passively resigned to their human foes, who 
exercised on them a degree of barbarity unequalled in the history 
of any other nation, and at which credibility is startled. No age, 
no sex, no condition were spared ; the wife, weeping over her 
murdered husband and embracing her helpless children, was 
butchered with them, and even pierced by the same stroke ; all 
the ties of blood and of society were dissolved ; and friends, rela- 
tives, and companions were hunted down by their kindred and 
connexions, and involved in common ruin by those whom they had 
formerly considered as most attached to their persons, and who 

a " The State of Protestants of Ireland under the late King James' 
Government," by William King, Archbishop of Dublin, p. 19. London, 
1691. A third edition was published in 1692. And see Borlace's " History 
of the Execrable Irish Eebellion," &c. London, 1680, In p. 109, Appendix, 
he gives a " collection of murthers " based on authentic evidence in the 
archives of Dublin. In p. 132, Appendix, he gives the depositions on oath 
of the Eev. Dr. Kobert Maxwell, afterwards Bishop of Kilmore, an eye 
witness of the horrors of this rebellion ; he says : — " That the rebels (lest they 
should hereafter be charged with more murthers than they had committed) 
commanded their priests to bring in a true account of them ; and that the 
persons so slaughtered (whether in Ulster, or the whole kingdom, deponent 
durst not inquire,) in March last amounted unto 151,000." And see Dr. 
Reid's "History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland," vol, i, pp. 330-336. 
Edinburgh, 1834. 

b Vol. iii, part ii, letter v, p. 287, London, 1801. 






255 

-were most near and dear to them ! The women, forgetting the 
character of their sex, emulated the men in horrible acts of 
cruelty ; in comparison with some of which, death might be re- 
garded as a light punishment, and even as a happy release from 
pain. Amidst these diabolical enormities the sacred name of 
religion resounded on every side, — not to arrest the fury of the 
murderers, but to enforce their blows, and to steel their hearts 
against every movement of natural or social sympathy. The 
English Protestants were marked out by the [Roman] Catholic 
priests for slaughter as heretics abhorred of God, and detestable 
to all holy men. Perfidy and cruelty Were therefore declared to be 
meritorious ; and if a number of Englishmen assembled together 
in order to defend themselves to extremity, and to sweeten death 
at least by taking revenge on the destroyers, they were disarmed 
by capitulations and promises of safety confirmed by the most 
solemn oaths. a But, no sooner had they surrendered than the 
rebels made them share the same fate with former victims. Nor 
was this all. While death finished the sufferings of each object 
of cruelty, the bigoted assassins, with joy and exultation, still 
echoed in his ears that these dying agonies were but a prelude to 
torments infinite and eternal. Such were the barbarities by which 
Sir Phelim O'Neil and the Irish in Ulster signalised their re- 
hellion. The English colonies there were annihilated; and from 
Ulster the flames of rebellion suddenly spread over the three 
other provinces of Ireland, where the English had established 
settlements. The number of persons who perished by all these 
barbarities is computed at 40,000 ; and the principal army of the 
rebels, amounting to 20,000 men, yet thirsting for further slaughter 
and richer spoils, now threatened Dublin, where the miserable 
remnant of the English planters had taken refuge." 

And in a note he says : — u The general slaughter I have reduced 
as low even as Mr. Burke, the author of the ' Trial of the Roman 
Catholics of Ireland,' could wish ; but truth forbids me to disguise 
the atrocious circumstances with which it was accompanied." 

Dr. Geddes b has republished a letter addressed to the Irish 

* Thus were the English who shut themselves up in the Cathedral Church 
at Armagh betrayed by Sir Phelim O'Neil ; those also who had sought 
refuge at Belterbert, Longford Castle, Castle of Tullogh, &c, &c. 

,} Geddes' " History of the Expulsion of the Moriscoes out of Spain," 
pp. 84, 85, vol. i, of third edition of " Miscellaneous Tracts." London, 1730. 



256 

Romanists by Cona Makony, an Irish Jesuit, from a book printed 
by him at Lisbon, but purporting to be published at Frankfort, 
1645. This letter was written to excite his countrymen to follow 
up the massacre of 1641, and " to cut the throats of all the 
Protestants in Ireland." He says : — 

" My dear Irish ! Go on and perfect the work of your liberty 
and defence, which is so happily begun by you ; and kill all the 
heretics, and all that do assist and defend them. You have in the 
space of four or five years, that is between the year 1641 and 
the year 1645, wherein I write this, killed 150,000 heretics, as 
your enemies do acknowledge. Neither do you deny it. And for 
my own part, as I verily believe, that you have killed more of 
them, so I would to God you had killed them all ! — which you 
must either do, or drive them all out of Ireland, that our Holy 
Land may be plagued no longer with such a light, changeable, 
inconstant, barbarous, ignorant, and lawless generation of people. 
We Catholic Irish will not, and never would, neither ought we to, 
suffer our country to be ruled by a proud King, who calls himself 
the Head of the Church. Let us, therefore, choose a Catholic 
king from among our brethren ; and let us have Irish Catholic 
judges and magistrates to rule over us in all matters temporal, 
and the Pope in all matters spiritual." 

Martial law was, thereupon, proclaimed in Ireland, and com- 
missions for the government of the several counties were granted 
to lords and gentlemen, but without distinction of creed, with full 
powers to repress the rebellion by force, if necessary. If, in the 
execution of these arduous duties, oppression and a hard hand 
were used, who is to blame ? It is a well authenticated fact, that 
all the grievances of the kingdom had been redressed previous to 
the breaking out of the rebellion, and the main object of that 
rebellion was to re-establish in Ireland the supremacy of the 
Roman Church, with the exclusive use of all her rites and cere- 
monies ; and this, notwithstanding the liberty they freely enjoyed 
to conduct their worship as they pleased. Such license was not 
sufficient for the ambitious designs of the Roman priesthood ; they 
desired then, as now, dominion. A small English force, sent by 
the Parliament of England in December, 1641, under the gallant 
Sir Simon Harcourt, soon restored order. In every encounter with 
the rebels, the latter were ignominiously defeated, and, like base 



257 

cowards, everywhere retreated before the disciplined English ; and 
a treaty of peace was, at length, in September, 1643, concluded. 
This force, without any internal assistance, never met with one 
single reverse, but carried victory before it in every quarter. 

Among the charges of cruelty brought against the English, or 
rather the Scotch Puritan, soldiers is, that there was a deliberate 
and authorised massacre at Magee, in cold blood, of all the men, 
women, and children, numbering to about 3,000, and this at a 
time, too, it is gravely asserted, ivlien no blood had been as yet shed 
in Ireland ! The date given is 9th January, 1642; only three 
or four months after the great massacres of 1641 ! Dr. Milner is 
one of the chief propagators of this atrocious slander. This alleged 
massacre is the worst charge that has been brought against the 
English in retaliation for the late massacres. I will not say that 
the tale is wholly apocryphal, but it strangely happens that this 
Magee massacre is not once referred to by any coeval Irish author ; 
and there were not wanting those who invariably threw the odium 
of every outrage on the Protestants. It is not mentioned by the 
furious O'Ceanza, the exterminating John O'Mahony, or by the 
equivocating John Ponce, who, in his " Vindicse Iphigenia," at- 
tempts to show that the rebellion of 1641 was a most holy and 
just war. Neither is it mentioned by French in his " Bleeding 
Iphigenia," or in his " Epistle to the Bishop of Paris," in both of 
which he endeavours to justify the treasons and perjuries of the 
revolted Irish. The respectable author who names the circumstance 
is Carte ! His words are : — " It is affirmed that such a measure was 
committed." * * * " Whether it happened before the surrender 
of Lurgan is hard to be determined, the relation of facts in these 
times being very, very uncertain." I quote the above from the 
Romish priest Dr. Charles O'Connor's "Historical Address," a 
wherein he brings Dr. Milner, the Popish Bishop of Castabala, to 
book for his extravagant accusations and perversion of history on 
this and kindred subjects: — "I scorn to enquire," continues Dr. 
O'Connor, "how the barren peninsula of Magee, a mere beach, one 
mile in length, and three in breadth, and washed on all sides by a 
tempestuous sea, could afford a population of 3,000 innocents ; or 
how any one remained to tell the fatal story if all — everyone — were 
destroyed. These are trifling considerations in the way of such an 
* Part ii, pp. 231-239. Buckingham, 1812. 

s 



258 

accurate scribbler as Castabala [Dr. John Milner]." And let rue 
again repeat that it is from such tainted sources that Mr. Cobbett, 
almost exclusively, derives his " History.'"' 

Passing on to the next period selected by Mr. Cobbett, the 
descent of Oliver Cromwell into Ireland, I shall content myself with 
transcribing here a very striking acknowledgment of Lamartine 
(now only lately deceased) in his work entitled " England under 
Cromwell." a He says : — 

•• The Irish nation, divided into two races, professing two 
religions, at all times at variance between themselves, first con- 
spired together to throw off the yoke of the Crown. Soon, how- 
ever, the Eoman Catholics and the ancient Irish families of the 
most distant provinces broke the league. They took advantage of 
the disturbances in the capital, and the weakness of the authority 
of the King, which hitherto constrained them ; and these new 
' Sicilian Vespers,' more bloody than those of Sicily, imbrued 
their hands in the blood of the English colonists, established for 
centuries past in the same villages, and with whom affinities, the 
ties of relationship, of marriage, had made them one people, and 
almost of the same blood. The Massacre of Saint Bartholomew, 
the days of September, the proscription of Eome under Marios 
or of France during the Reign of Terror, did not equal the bar- 
barities with which the Irish of these provinces stained the 
character of their race, and tarnished the annals of their country. 
Even the leaders of this conspiracy of the province of Ulster 
themselves shuddered at the ferocities of this malicious, fanatical, 
and inexorable people which they had instigated. The fetes by 
which these conquering people celebrated their victory were assas- 
sinations. They put in practice tortures the most cruel and the 
most lingering, which the imaginations of cannibals even could 
not have invented. They prolonged the agonies of either sex to 
prolong their own delight. They allowed blood to flow drop by 
drop, and life to escape by slow degrees, more fully to satiate 
their own fury. 

•• These massacres spread through all the provinces of Ireland, 
one after another, except Dublin, its capital, where a weak garri- 
son of the King's troops preserved peace. More than a hundred 
thousand innocent victims, men, women, children, old men, and 
a Braxelles, 1854. Cap. xxxix, p. 65. et seq. 



259 

the feeble, blocked up with their bodies the thresholds of the 
houses they inhabited, and strewed the fields which they had culti- 
vated in common with their inhuman brothers. 

" Those who escaped from these assassins, carrying their infants 
in their arms, fled to the mountains, and died of hunger and of 
cold in the snows of winter. One cannot read, eyen in the most 
partial historians, the recital of these protracted national crimes 
without execrating these butcheries. We can account for Heaven's 
long curse on Ireland. No person can for one moment justify 
tyranny ; but a nation which has to atone for such slaughter can- 
not accuse the acts of her oppressors without bringing back to 
remembrance her own evil deeds. The misfortunes of a nation are 
not always the fault of her conquerors ; they are sometimes vengeance, 
resulting from her own crimes.''' 1 

Such is the description given by a Romanist historian of the 
present day, with all the advantages of more modern and disin- 
terested investigations of documents, of the unprovoked atrocities 
perpetrated by Eomanists on their unoffending Protestant brethren. 
This state of anarchy was to be suppressed. Papists desired to 
extirpate Protestants. Cromwell sent his army into Ireland, as is 
alleged, to extirpate Papists; this was a ''reflex action," and if 
persecutions and oppressions followed, however much we may and 
do reprobate them, Mr. Cobbett is not acting the part of a truth- 
ful historian by passing over in silence the cold-blooded atrocities 
of the Romanists, which brought upon them the retributive ven- 
geance of their opponents, the result, as Lamartine testifies, of 
their, own crimes. 

But what all this has to do with the Reformation Mr. Cobbett 
does not explain. Religion — that is the Roman system passing 
under the name of religion — had been made a pretext to influence 
the minds of the uneducated and bigoted Irish peasantry — " the 
peaceable peasantry ;" and the Pope and Roman priesthood had not 
failed to make use of such means and instruments as we have referred 
to, in order to gain the ascendancy in Ireland and rule that country 
as a dependence of the Papacy. As applied to the Reformers and 
Reformation Mr. Cobbett's charges are wholly inadmissible. What 
he complains of may be an effect, but he wholly suppresses the cause. 
But surely Mr. Cobbett has not been wise in introducing the subject 
of Ireland into his " History of the Reformation." 

s 2 



260 

English rule, or alleged misrule, has nothing whatever to do 
with the subject of his work ; it is a political and national question. 
The evil, if it be an evil, originated some centuries before the 
Reformation began. It originated with the Pope himself; and 
Roman Catholic Ireland, humanly speaking, owes all her calami- 
ties to the rapacity and falsehood of two of her head Bishops — 
rapacity, for levying a tax of one penny on each house; falsehood, 
for claiming their title to Ireland under a forged document. 

Romanism in Ireland has furnished one of the blackest pages in 
the history of the Papal system.. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE REFORMERS. 

Mr. Cobbett has levelled against the Reformers such a battery of 
invective and vulgar abuse, that one would suppose they had done 
him some personal injury. With him, the Reformers were 
" revilers of religion," a " vile and selfish calumniators," b (i mongrel 
sects," " a mongrel litter," d " motley mongrels," e " hypocrites,"*' 
"profligate," g " ruffians and villains." h They were " rapacious 
vultures," 1 "hellish ruffians," J "Reformation birds of prey," k 
"liars;" 1 "nothing, indeed, short of diabolical malice was to be 
expected from such men." m 

There is a remarkable agreement between Mr. Cobbett, the 
Papists, and the " Anglican Ritualists," in their estimation of the 
Reformers. Mr. Cobbett agrees with the Romanists — that is, his 
statements were no doubt the dictation of a Jesuit. The Ritualists 
of the present day are equally outspoken. The following is the 
language of one of their leading members, Dr. Littledale : — 
" Robespierre, Danton, Marat, St. Just, and Couthon merit quite 
as much admiration and respect as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and 
Hooper." And as to the Reformation itself, its character and 
results, he looks on it as a flood, an act of Divine vengeance, nob 
of Divine grace; a merited chastisement, not a fresh revelation; 
and asserts that it is " absolutely impossible for any just, educated, 
and religious man, who has read the history of the time, in genuine 
sources, to hold two opinions about the Reformers." " They were," 
he says, " such utterly unredeemed villains, for the most part, 
that the only parallel he knows for the way in which half-educated 
people speak of them among us is, the appearance of Pontius Pilate 
among the saints of the Abyssinian calendar." Then follows an 
apology to Robespierre, Danton, Marat, and Couthon, for having 
placed them on the same level with Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper. 

They," he adds, " betrayed no trust, were not sharers in the 



It r 



a 24. • 


*25. 


c 53. 


dCO. 


e 8S. 


f 89. 


ar 100. 


»• 160. 


* 173. 


i 170. 


k 179. 


»179. 


m 185. 







262 

particular iniquity they overthrew, crouched to no tyrant, perjured 
themselves to no man." " So far, they stand on a higher moral 
level than the base traitors -who were, and deservedly, executed 
— blunder and folly as that execution was — by Mary I." a 

Mr. Cobbett writes : — 

" Perhaps the world has never, in any age, seen a nest of such 
atrocious miscreants as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, and the 
rest of the distinguished reformers of the Catholic religion." b Me- 
lancthon, of course, was one of them. Our Koman Catholic brethren, 
who so industriously circulate Mr. Cobbett's book, do not seem to 
be ashamed of their patron and champion. It is a matter of taste ! 
As an antidote, in the outset of my remarks, let me record the 
sentiments of Dr. Hook, Dean of Chichester, whose opinion and 
credit I feel it is an insult to be put in comparison with those of Mr. 
Cobbett. In his "Lives of the Archbishops," c he says: — "In 
vain do we look in the annals of our country for a hero like 
Martin Luther; full of earnestness, fervour, enthusiasm, courage; 
dauntless, decided, resolute ; a man of the people. We look in vain 
for a theologian like John Calvin; systematic, accurate, severe; 
whose mighty mind, fired by contact with the spirit of St. Augus- 
tine, has left its impress on the Protestant world, and has compelled 
men, unconsciously, to accept and to propagate, in essentials, much 
of the Scholastic Doctrine. We cannot even point to any one who 
approaches to Melancthon or Zuingle, the man of deep thought, 
and the man of wild enthusiasm." 

MARTIX LUTHER. 

Luther, as might be expected, meets with Mr. Cobbett's special 
indignation and abuse. 

"All accounts," he says, " agree that Luther was a most profligate 
man." d To refute this first piece of slander, let me take the Eoman 
Catholic historian Dr. Lingard. He says, " Martin Luther was a 
man of ardent mind, of unimpeached morals, and of strong preju- 
dices against the Court of Kome ! " e Erasmus Middleton, in his 
" Life of Luther," introduces him as follows : — " We come now to 

a Dr. Littledale's Lecture, as quoted in the " Times," 23rd May, 1868. 

b 200. 

c Second series, vol. ii, p. 150. London, 1868. 

a 110 

e " History of England," vol. vi, cap. ii, p. 125. London, 1823. 



263 

treat of a most wonderful man, whom God raised up in these last 
ages of the world, to break the chain of superstition and spiritual 
slavery which the Bishops of Eome and their dependents had, for 
many centuries, cast over the consciences of men. He was an 
instrument, truly, prepared for this great work." a This is the 
key-note which gives the pitch for all invectives against Luther. 
The same Middleton bears testimony that "in private life, Luther 
was an example of strictest virtue." b In fact, the moral character 
of Martin Luther stands above suspicion. His most bitter enemy 
cannot find anything against him, beyond the fact that he, who 
was once a monk, married a lady who was once a nun. The history 
of this marriage is shortly as follows : — Catherine Bore left the 
monastery of Nimptschen in 1523, and lived with her family. 
She was married to Luther in 1525, two years after she had ceased 
to be a nun. 

The calumny against Luther appears to be founded on Luther's 
own words : — " I took," he says, " a wife in obedience to my father's 
commands, and hastened the consummation, in order to stop the 
tongues of slanderers, and all obstacles." c Luther was accused of 
being a seducer ! From this passage, and they really have nothing 
else to rely on, they jump to a false conclusion, placing the scandal 
on immoral grounds. The scandal was, in fact, that he, a priest, 
should marry at all. Yet, according to Eome's moral theology, it is a 
greater evil for a priest to marry than to commit fornication. d Or, 
as Cardinal Campegio openly pronounced before the magistrates 
of Strasburgh, " that it was a greater sin for priests to be married, 
than to keep several harlots in their own houses." e But what 
was the testimony of Erasmus, himself a Roman priest, of his 
fraternity at this very period? In his " Annotations," in Ep. i. ad 

a " Biograpliia Ev'angelica," vol. i, p. 158. London, 1779. 

b Ibid, p. 233. 

c " Posttilante patre raeo conjugiuni inii, et ut linguas nialedicorum et 
impedimenta yitarem, congressum nuptialem properanter institui." Oper. 
torn, iii, p. 150, fol. edit. Jena ; cited by Seckendorf, in his <: Apology for 
Luther," lib. ii, n. 4. Leips., 1694. 

J " Est majus malum sic nubere quam fornicare." Bellarmine, " De 
Monach." lib. ii, cap. xxxiv, torn, ii, col. 375. Ingolcl, 1601. 

e " Quod sacerdotes mariti fiant, gravius esse peccatum, quam si pluriinas 
domi meretrices habeant." Cardinalis Campegius apud Sleiclan, lib. ivj 
p. 74. London, 1639. 



264 

Timoth. cap. 3, lie wrote : — " If any consider the state of these 
times, how great a part of mankind the multitudes of monks 
make up, how great a part the colleges of priests and clergymen : 
and then carefully consider how few out of so great a number 
truly preserve chastity of life, with how great scandal most of 
them are openly incestuous and incontinent, into what kinds of 
sensuality innumerable of them degenerate, he will perhaps con- 
clude it to be more expedient that those who cannot contain may 
have the freedom of public marriage, which they may maintain 
purely of chastity, without infamy, rather than they should com- 
mit unhappy and shameful lusts. The world hath now many 
unmarried men, but few chaste, &c." a Need I advert to the 
notorious fact that the bishops, priests, &c, who attended at the 
Council of Constance brought with them their concubines, to 
the great scandal of the Church ! 

To return, however, to Luther. " The report," he says, " is 
true that I am married on a sudden to Catherine, before I was 
obliged to hear a clamour against me, as is usual on such 
occasions." b 

In another letter Luther wrote : — " I have prepared myself that, 
before I die, I may be found by God in the state in which I was 
created, and, if possible, retain nothing of my former Popish life. 
Therefore, let them rave yet more, and this will be their last fare- 
well. For my mind presages that I shall soon be called by God 
into the grave. Therefore, at my father's desire, I have taken a 

a " Si quis perpendat horum temporura statum, quotam hominuin por- 
ticraem monachorum greges occupent, quotam sacerdotum et clericorum 
collegia : deinde perpendat, quam pauci e tanto numero vere servent vitas 
castimoniarn, turn in qure libidinuru genera quam innumeri devergant, 
quanto cum probo complures palam incesti sint et impudici, fortassis 
judicabit magis expedire, ut iis, qui, prorsus non continent, jus fiat publici 
matrimonii, quod absque mala fama, pure sancteque colant, potius quam 
infeliciter ac turpiter libidinentur. Nunc coelibes habet mundus quam 
plurimos, castos perpaucos : quanquam nee is castus est qui Venerem non 
attingit quia non licet. Sed etiam atque etiam vereor, ne census eccle- 
siastici castrent hodie clericos verius quam pietas, dum metuimus, ne quod 
tenemus intercipiatur, aut certe nihil accidat." Erasm. Opera, torn, vi, col. 
934, note 4.c. Lugduni Batayorum, 1703. 

b Luther's " Epist. ad Amsdoresium," lib. ii, p. 295, dated 22nd June; also 
quoted by Seckendorf, lib. ii, n, 7. Leipsic, 1694. 



265 

"wife." a And again : — " I would not deny this last obedience to my 
father, who required it in hopes of issue, and also to confirm the 
doctrines I have taught." b The "Table Talk" gives Luther's 
prayers before his marriage: — "Loving, heavenly Father, foras- 
much as thou hast placed me in the honour of thy name and office, 
and wilt also have me to be named and honoured a father, grant 
me grace and bless me, that I may rule and maintain my loving 
wife, children, and servants divinely and christian-like. Give me 
wisdom and strength well to govern and to bring them up ; give 
also unto them hearts and wills to follow thy doctrine and to be 
obedient. Amen." c And this is Cobbett's hero of profligacy, 
" a brutal man, void of piety and humanity, more a Jew than a 
Christian;" d — language which Mr. Cobbett attributes to Melanc- 
thon, a contemporary and fellow-labourer with Luther, but which 
he never uttered. Melancthon himself testified in respect to this mar- 
riage : — " If common fame says anything indecent, it is manifest that 
it is a lie and a calumny." e The learned Romanist Erasmus, who 
was ordained a priest in 1492, also a contemporary of Lnther, 
gave the following testimony on this subject : — " Luther's marriage 
is certain ; the report of his wife's being so speedily brought to 
bed is false, but I hear she is now with child. If the common story 
he tme, that Antichrist shall be born of a monk and a nun, as they 
pretend, how many thousands of Antichrists are there in the world 
already /" f And that Erasmus was unprejudiced appears in his 
following words, viz. : — " I was in hopes a wife would have made 
Luther a little tamer, but he, contrary to all expectations, has 
published a most elaborate work against me, but as virulent as 

a Quoted by Seckendorf, lib. ii, sec. v, n. 4, from Luther's Works, " Epist. 
ad Buhelium," torn, iii, p. 150, fol. edit. Leips., 1691. 

b Ibid., lib. ii, n. 7. 

c " Table Talk," cap.xlix, " On Matrimony," p. 401. Bell's second edition. 
London, 1791. 

d251. 

e " Si quid vulgo fertur aliud indecentius, id mendacium et calumniam 
esse perspicuum est." — Melanc. apud Seckendorf, lib. ii, n. 10. Leipsic, 
1691. 

f " De conjugio Lutheri certum est ; de partu maturo sponsre vagus erat 
rumor, nunc tamen gravida esse dicitur. Si vera est vulgi fabula Anti- 
cbristum nasciturum ex monacbo et monacha, quemadmodum isti jactitant, 
quot Antichristorum millia jam olim habet mundus 1" — Erasm. Epist, xxii, 
lib. xvii, edit. Lugduni Batavorum. 1703. 



266 

any book that ever he wrote." It must be remembered that 
Erasmus himself had before propagated the scandal, in a letter 
addressed to the President of the High Council of Holland, in 
1525, on erroneous reports, spread by Luther's enemies, but which 
reports, as I have already shown, he was honest enough subse- 
quently to contradict. We are reminded of Luther's and Bore's vows. 
Does not the Church of Eome undertake to dispense with vows 
made ? The fact, therefore, of such a vow being disregarded is 
not a sin in their eyes, but that the vow should be broken without 
licence. But hear what the great St. Augustine says of such 
vows : — " They that say the marriage of such men or women as 
have vowed constancy is no marriage, but rather adultery, seem 
to me not to consider discreetly or advisedly what they say." a 
But I cannot leave this part of our subject without adducing 
further testimony in favour of Luther from the pen of this same 
Erasmus. In writing to Mdancthon, he said : — " All men among- 
them approved the life of Martin Luther." b To QEcolampadus he 
wrote that, Luther '•meditated of nothing but heavenly things." 
In writing to Cardinal Thomas, of York, he said: — " The man's 
life is approved by general consent ; now this is not a slight pre- 
possession in his favour that, so great is his moral integrity, even 
his enemies can find nothing to reproach him with." d Such is the 
testimony borne to Luther at the time when his alleged immor- 
alities must have been notorious. Erasmus again said, writing to 
the Archbishop Albert : — " He was accounted a good man even by 
his enemies. I perceive that all the best men are the least offended 
with his writings." e He goes on to say that his very enemies 
allow him to be a man of good life. The same Erasmus, in his 
14th epistle, to Cardinal Laurentius Campegio, said : — " I heard 
distinguished men of approved doctrine and religion congratulate 

a Augustinus, " De Bono Vi dixit atis," c. x, p. 375, torn. vi. Paris, 1685. 

b " Martini Lntheri vitam apud nos nemo non probat." Erasm. ep. 
ccccxi, vol. iii, col. 431. Lugduni Batavorum, 1703. 

c Ibid., ep. cccliv, col. 867. 

d " Hominis vita niagno omnium consensu probatur ; jam id non leve 
prsejudicium est, tantam esse morum integritatem ut nee hostes reperiant 
quod caiumnientur." Ibid., ep. cccxrii, col. 322 ; torn, iii, para. 7. Lug. 
Bat., 1703. 

« " Illud video ufc quisque vir est optimus, ita illius scriptis minime 
offendi." Ibid, p. 514. 






267 

themselves that they had met with this man's books. / saw that 
ivhoever was most correct in his morals and nearest to evangelical 
.purity was least offended with Luther. Moreover, his life was 
commended even by those who were displeased with his doctrine." a 
And this was the same Luther of whom the Italian historian 
Guicciardini said : — " Many conceived that the troubles which 
were raised against Luther took their original from the innocency 
of his life and soundness of his doctrine, rather than from any other 
cause." b 

But let Romanists look at home, and inquire what this same 
Erasmus again testified as to the vices of their own Church. Writing 
to Jacobus Justus he said (lib. xxii), " Luther's indignant invectives 
against our people are truer than I could wish." c And to Peter 
Baroerius (lib. xxi), " Would, my Barberius, that the things which 
Luther has written concerning the tyranny, avarice, and vileness 
of the Roman Court were false ; " d — the Roman Court being ex- 
clusively ecclesiastics ! If this be true, and it is, and can be amply 
corroborated, if it were to the point, why all this vituperation 
against Luther ? I would answer in the well-known saying of 
this same Erasmus, when interrogated to the like effect by the 
Duke of Saxony : — " Luther had committed two great crimes, for 
he had taken away the crown from the Pope, and had taken down 
the belly of the monks." e 

Who now is the " profligate ?" 

Luther, in his person, abrogated a cruel and unnatural law — - 
" forbidding to marry ; " the mark of a vicious, unchristian, and 
anti-christian polity. But no such institution as marriage was 
required to hand down to posterity a name which will ever live in 
the hearts and minds of thousands, for he bequeathed to us the 

a " Audiebam eximios viros, probatse doctrince probatseque religionis, sibi 
gratulari quod in hujus viri libros incidissent. Videbam ut quisque esset 
integerrimus moribus et evangelicse puritati proxinms, ita niiniine incensum 
Luthero. Porro vita prasdicabatur et ab iis qui doctrinam non ferebant." 

b " Come se le persecution! nascessimo piu dalla innocenza della sua 
vita, et dalla sanita della dotrina clie da altra cagione." Guicciardini, 
"His. Ital,," lib. xiii, p. 380. Venice, 1563. 

c " Quae Lutherus destomacbatur in nostros veriora sunt quam vellem." 

d " Quse Lutherus scripsit de tyrannide, avaritia, turpitudine Romanse 
Curiae, utinam, mi Barberi, essent falsa." 

<' " Carion. in Chron. Auct. a Pene." lib. v, p. 937. Grenev.,'1625. 



268 

great and glorious Reformation, which is identified with, and 
inseparable from, the name of the immortal Martin Luther. 

As Luther lived so he died. His last words have been recorded. 
I earnestly pray that they may sink deep into the hearts of all of 
us ; and that we may from them learn to believe that no profligate 
or libertine could, at such a moment, render up his spirit to the 
great God who gave it with such firm reliance that he was accepted 
by the Almighty, as we see evinced by Martin Luther. " 0, my 
Father, God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of all consola- 
tion, I thank Thee for having revealed to me Thy well-beloved 
Son, in whom I believe, whom I have preached and acknowledged, 
loved and celebrated, and whom the Pope and the impious perse- 
cute, I commend to Thee my soul. O, Jesus Christ, my Lord, 
I am quitting this earthly body, I am leaving this life, but I 
know that I shall abide eternally with Thee." 

A favourite charge against Luther is his alleged familiar inter- 
course with the Devil. "A pretty trio of Protestant 'saints' 
[Cranmer, Ridley, and Lord Somerset]," exclaims Mr. Cobbett, 
" fc quite worthy, however, of ' Saint ' Martin Luther, who says 
in his own works that it was by the arguments of the Devil (who, 
he says, frequently ate, drank, and slept with him,) that he was 
induced to turn Protestant." a " The Reformation, which Luther said 
he was taught by the Devil." b " The Devil, who was, as Luther him- 
self says, so long a companion, and so often the bed-fellow, of this 
first Reformer." c 

It is really astonishing how one writer borrows from another, 
without the slightest attempt to arrive at the truth or trace the 
scandal to its original source. And each transcriber improves on 
the other, until we can scarcely recognise the original. The usual 
charge is, that Luther had a conference with the Devil, and from 
him he derived his arguments against the Popish mass. This is 
the substance of the original charge, which has undergone numerous 
modifications — Mr. Cobbett's not the least extravagant. The 
dispute in which Luther was engaged with his Popish opponents 
on the mass was in 1522. At this time he had already repu- 
diated publicly the superstitious error involved in this celebration. 
He published a book, " De Captivitate Babylonia," and " De 
Abroganda Missa,-" in the year 1520, wherein he repudiated the 
a 251. b 270. c 358. 



269 

mass as a falsehood ; and so, also, at the Diet of Worms in April, 
1521. So that the slander, that Lnther was suddenly inspired by 
-the Devil one night during the course of the disputation in 1522, 
and from that evil source rejected the mass, refutes itself. That 
portion of Luther's writings a upon which the traditionary tale of 
his alleged interview with the Devil is built and falsified has been 
long since most completely exposed. The learned historian Secken- 
dorf, in his " Commentarius Historicus et Apologeticus Luther- 
anismo," b has set this and other calumnies against Luther at rest. 
Seckendorf shows that the person who translated Luther's work, 
from whence the quotation is supposed to be taken, from the German 
into Latin, left out many things, and, in particular, these words, 
meo corde, "in my heart," from the passage running on " multas 
enim noctes mihi acerbas et molestas fecit," which ought imme- 
diately to follow the sentence, " Satan mecum ccepit ejusmodi 
disputationem ; " so that in English the translation should be— 
" Satan began with me, in my heart, the following disputation." 
So that, instead of describing a real struggle with the great tempter, 
Luther is only speaking figuratively. And even if he were in 
earnest, who among us has not had his seasons of trial, and 
wrestled with the flesh and the evil spirit within us? And happy 
are those who, like Luther, have overcome the temptations of Satan ! 
But the idea of any Eomanist making such an incident an accu- 
sation, or a joke, against Luther ! Their " Acts of the Saints," 
edited by the Jesuit John Bollendus, show in almost every page 
the alleged actual appearance of the Devil, personal encounters with 
his satanic majesty, and ultimate triumph over the evil spirit. 
However, the story is a favourite one, and they cannot afford to 
pass it over, although the matter has been repeatedly set right. 
One version goes on to say that, when the Devil once appeared to 
Luther, he threw his inkstand at his head, and that the identical 
inkstand has been handed down as a holy relic, and reverenced by 
the faithful ! 

The next charge is peculiarly infelicitous. " Luther began his 
Reformation a few years too soon for the King [Henry VIII]. In 
1517, when Luther began his works, the King had been married 
to his first wife only eight years, and he had not then conceived 

a See vol. vii, p. 228. Witemb., 1557. 

b Lib. i, sect, cii, pp. 1 66, 167, fol. Leips , 1694. 



270 

any project of divorce. If Luther had begun twelve years later, 
the King would have been a Protestant at once, especially after 
seeing that this new religion allowed Luther and seven other of 
his brother leaders of the Eeformation to grant under their hands 
a licence to the Landgrave of Hesse to have two wives at the 
same time. So complaisant a religion would have been, and 
doubtless was, at the time of the divorce, precisely to the King's 
taste." a 

This is a direct charge against Luther, that he and seven others 
gave a licence to the Landgrave to have two wives at one time. 
But this, also, is a distortion of fact. Bucer was commissioned by 
the Landgrave to get the opinion of some of the Reformers on the 
subject of his proposed second marriage. He had made up his 
mind on the subject. Luther, then, was in confinement; he, 
Melancthon, and the others, gave their decided opinion that, 
against God's law, no dispensation had any force. They pointed 
out the scandal the Landgrave would bring upon himself and the 
Church, and the bad example given to others by doing what he con- 
templated. They urged every scriptural and moral and political 
argument against the act. They urged his illustrious name and 
lineage, and they exhorted him, by all means, to avoid fornication 
and adultery, and not to act against his conscience and against the 
obedience due to God's law, or " yield his members as instruments 
of unrighteousness." They urged him to weigh well the matter, 
" Be also pleased to consider," they said, " that God had given his 
Grace fair young princes and princesses with this consort, and to 
be content with her, as many others must have patience under 
their marriage, to avoid offence. For, that they should excite or 
urge his Grace to an offensive innovation was far from their mind." 
And they declared that the reproach of their country would be in- 
tolerable to them if they sanctioned such a proceeding, " because 
we are commanded in God's Word to" regulate marriage, and all 
human matters, according to their first divine institution, and so far 
as possible to keep them therein, and to avert whatever may offend 
any one." After again urging a chaste life, they added that if he 
was determined in the course he contemplated, to have it done in 
secret, to avoid public scandal ; and they conclude by stating, that 
"his Grace had thus their testimony and advice in the matter, which 

a 101. 



271 

they urged him to weigh well. a And this is what Mr. Cobbett 
calls a " licence " to have two wires at a time ! 

When, however, this same Bucer published a work vindicating 
the conduct of the Landgrave, Luther thundered out his condem- 
nation in the tone and spirit so peculiar to this great and conscien- 
tious man. b So much, then, for this piece of scandal ! But when 
Mr. Cobbett supposes that the fact of having two wives was in any 
manner a difficulty in the way of Henry VIII. as a " Catholic," 
for which Protestantism offered peculiar facilities, he is presuming 
911 our ignorance, as well of the spirit and genius of the Roman 
Church, as also of the facts which actually did transpire. When 
Henry's suit for divorce was pending, Pope Clement VII. actually, 
but secretly, proposed to Gregory Cassalis, the King's Ambassador 
at Home, to concede to the King the permission of having two 
wives. c And, again, after the marriage with Anne Boleyn, the 
Pope offered to ratify the marriage, and legitimise Elizabeth, if 
the King would submit to his supremacy, but which offer Henry 
indignantly rejected. And thus I dispose, also, of this piece of 
scandal. I am not justifying either Luther or Henry : I am only 
examining a favourite charge made against Luther, and am showing 
that Romanists are the last who ought to lay this scandal to the 
charge of Luther. 

Another favorite charge against Luther, and repeated of course 
by Mr. Cobbett is, that he "considered St. James' Epistle an 
i Epistle of Straw.' " d " He expunged from their Bible the 
Epistle of St. James, because it recommends and insists on the 
necessity of good works, which Epistle Luther calls an Epistle of 
Straw." e This is one of the old stock Papist calumnies, and we have 
only to repeat the same answer as often as the charge is advanced. 

a The original of this document is in the Hessian archives. A French 
translation is given in fall in Bossuet's " History of Variations," lib. vi, 
p. 378, torn. xix. Versailles edition, 1816. I have given an English transla- 
tion of the entire document in my " Luther Vindicated," pp. 83-5. Banks, 
30, Ludgate Hill. 

i> See Seckendorf 's " Apology for Luther," lib. iii, p. 281. Leips., 1694. 

c " Superioribus diebus, Pontifex secreto, veluti rem quam magifecerit, 
mini proposuit conditionem hujusmodi, concedi posse vestras majestati et 
duas uxores habeas." Lord Herbert's " Life and Keign of Henry VIIL," 
p. 130. London, 1683. 

d 332. e 328. 



272 

The passage purported to be quoted occurs iu a part of the preface 
to the German New Testament, published in 1522, printed by 
Walch, in vol. xiv, p. 105, but was omitted from the editions sub- 
sequent to 1524. Luther was pointing out the value of the 
Gospel of St. John above the other three, and concludes : — u St. 
John's Gospel and the 1st Epistle, the Epistles of St. Paul, 
especially those to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. 
Peter's 1st epistle — these are the books which set Christ before 
you, and teach you everything necessary and salutary for you to 
know, even though you were never to hear or see any other book 
or doctrine. Therefore the Epistle of St. James is quite an epistle 
of straw by the side of these." Thus it will be seen that the 
expression is not used positively, but relatively, and in comparison 
with the other books of the New Testament, in which the special 
doctrines of the Gospel are brought forward more fully and ex- 
plicitly. To take this expression ajmrt from the context is to give 
it the force that is desired by Mr. Cobbett — but why not quote 
honestly ? It is nevertheless a fact that the Epistle of St. James, 
notwithstanding its excellency, was not received as canonical during 
the first ages of the Church. 

As for Luther expunging the Epistle of St. James from the 
Bible, that is simply a naked falsehood, and requires no further 
comment. 

The great and fundamental doctrine of Christianity insisted on 
by the Reformers was justification by faith, and that without the 
deeds of the law. They declared that we are not justified by the 
works, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even as they had believed 
in Christ. By the works of the law (they declared as their belief) 
shall no flesh be justified. a This great fundamental truth of our 
reformed religion was specially preached by Luther. And in 
preaching the doctrine of justification by faith, an outcry is raised 
against the declaration that we are justified " by faith alone." 
Hence the charge that Luther and the Reformers totally rejected 
the necessity of " good works." Mr. Cobbett takes up the cry 
with his usual exaggeration : — 

" Luther and his followers," he says, " wholly rejected the 
doctrine that good works were necessary to salvation. They 
expunged from their Bible the Epistle of St. James because it 
a "Rom. iii, 28. Gal. ii, 16. 



273 

recommends and insists on the necessity of good works." ' a tl They 
all maintained that faith alone was sufficient to secure salvation, 
while the Catholics maintained that good works were also neces- 
sary." b " The Eeformers agreed in nothing but in the doctrine 
that good works were useless ; and their lives proved the sincerity 
of their teaching ; for there was not a man of them whose acts did 
not merit a halter." c 

I have hitherto avoided all questions of doctrine and con- 
troversy, and in this instance I will endeavour to keep to facts. 
The Roman doctrine of justification and good works was not 
defined until the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, 1547, in 
which there is a great deal of truth mixed up with a great deal of 
most pernicious error, and not the least error taught is — that 
works are actually the cause of an increase of justification (Canon 
26). This has led to that other pernicious error, that we can apply 
to ourselves the supposed superabundant merits of departed saints. 
The Popish doctrine of " merit," that is, that we merit reward 
according to our good works, is one of the old Pelagian heresies 
of the days of Augustine. d What we have now to deal with is the 
actual teaching (at the time Luther preached the doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith) of the Roman Church propagated by Tetzel and 
the other emissaries of the Pope, who sold indulgences. They, in 
effect, taught that by payment of a sum of money there could be a 
corresponding remission of shi, but as Romanists now allege,, 
the punishment due to sin, which to the purchasers of indulgences 
amounted to the same thing. The money was supposed to be 
applied to some good work, and the doctrine was taught that the 
fact of doing this good work justified the sinner before God, which 
is completely subversive of the doctrine of atonement. The very 
moment the money chinked against the bottom of the chest a soul r 
they said, escaped from purgatory and flew to heaven. Another 
extravagance unblushingly taught was, that " there was no sin so 
great that an indulgence could not absolve, and even if any one 
had violated the Blessed Mother of God, always a virgin (which 
is impossible), it is as clear as daylight that if he only procures an 

a 328. b 101. c 200. 

a " Pelagiana est hseresis, quod Deus secundum mensuram operum meri- 
toriorum prsemiabit hominem sic merentem." — Tho. Waldensis, " De Sacra - 
mentatib." torn, iii, tit. i, cap. vii. Venet., 1571. 

r 



274 

indulgence all would be forgiven him." a The theory, therefore, was 
" as clear as daylight." They taught that the simple fact of doing 
a good work was in itself meritorious, whatever the motive might 
have been. It was against this dangerous delusion that Luther 
preached, and preached so successfully as to shake the Papacy to 
its foundation. If he, on the other hand, used exaggerated 
language in declaring the naked truth, that we are saved by faith 
in Christ alone, he had to combat a gigantic error ; but that he 
preached that good works were not necessary, as a naked proposi- 
tion, is false. His writings are replete with passages which prove 
that he held that good works are an exemplification and inevitable 
result of a lively faith. 

It will be sufficient if I quote the following sample passage from 
Luther's Preface to his Commentaries on Paul's Epistle to the 
Romans. After commenting on "the difference between doing the 
work of the law, and fulfilling the law," and explaining what it is 
" to fulfil the law," he proceeds to explain what it is that he means 
by the words, '•' faith alone justifies." He says : — 

* * * a Therefore, our whole justification is from God. Faith 
and the spirit [spiritus] are from God, and not from us. 

u Faith alone justifies. — Hence, also, faith alone justifies, and 
alone fulfils the law ; for faith obtains, through the merit of 
Christ, the Holy Spirit. This Spirit renews the heart; rouses, 
excites, and inflames it, so that it willingly does those things 
which the law wishes. In short, from faith, so efficaciously acting 
and living in the heart, spontaneously flow true good works. 
This he intends to say in the third chapter ; for when, therein, he 
had condemned altogether the works of the law, and perceived that 
he might appear as intending, through the doctrines of faith, to de- 
stroy and abolish the law, by anticipation he meets their difficulty. 
We do not, (he says,) destroy the law, but we strengthen it ; that 
is, we teach how, by believing, or by faith, it is in truth fulfilled." b 

a " Sub commissariis insuper ac prasdicatoribus vemarum irnperare, ut 
si quis, per impossibile, Dei genetricem semper virginem violasset, quod 
eundeni indulgentiarura vigore absolvere possent, luce clarius est." — 
Positiones Fratris J. Tezelii, quibus def endit indulgentias contra Lutlierum ; 
theses 99, 100 et 101. The indulgences were sold by Tetzel under the 
immediate authority of Leo X. See "Forma Absolutionis Plenarias," apud 
Gerdesium, " Monumenta Antiquitatis," torn, i, No. vii, b. p. 74. 

* " Fides sola Justificat. — Hinc et sola fides justificat, solaque legem 



275 

To rebut the reckless charge made by Mr. Cobbett, as to the 
alleged universal teaching of the Eeformers, that they rejected 
good works in their theory, I have only to refer to the Confession 
of Augsburg (a.d. 1530), published under the title of " Formula 
Concordise," or Form of Concord, being the declared doctrines of 
the Reformers concerning justification. This, alone, is a sufficient 
answer to the sweeping declaration of Mr. Cobbett. I quote the 
following extracts from the Leipsic edition, 1756 : — " That faith 
and salvation are neither preserved nor retained by good works, 
because these are only evidences that the Holy Spirit is present, and 
dwells in us." (Pp. 590, 705. Appendix, p. 174.) " That after 
man is justified by faith, his faith, being then true and alive, is 
operative by charity, for good works always follow justifying faith, 
and are most certainly discovered with it ; thus, faith is never alone, 
hut always accompanied hy hope and charity." (P. 586.) "We allow 
that where good works do not follow faith, in such case, it is a 
false and not a true faith." (P. 336.) " That it is impossible to 
separate good works from faith, as heat and light from fire." 
(P. 701). " That good works are necessary on many accounts, 
hit not as a meritorious cause." (Pp. 11, 17, 64, 95, 133, 589, 590, 
702, &c.) The confession of all Protestants agree in this — that 
God rewards good works, but that it is of grace that he crowns 
his own gifts. This was a saying of the great Augustine, Bishop 
of Hippo, in Africa, but the doctrine was so repugnant to the 
Romish theory of merits and good works, that the passage was 
ordered to be expunged from his works. a This reminds me, also, 
of a further declaration of the Augsburg Confession 15 — " Works 

implet ; fides enim per meritum Cbristi impetrat Spiritum Sanctum. Hie 
Spiritus cor novat, exbilarat, et excitat, et inflammat, tit sponte faciat ea 
quae vult lex. Ac turn demtim ex fide, sic in corde efficaciter agente et 
vivente, sponte fluunt opera vera bona. Hoc vult, cap. 3. Nam cum ibi 
damnasset prorsus opera legis, et potuisset videri legem, per fidei doctrinam, 
destructurus et aboliturus, per occupationem occurrit. Legem (inquit) non 
destruimus, sed stabilimus ; id est, docemus, quomodo lex, credendo, seu per 
fidem, vere impleatur." — Lutberi Opera, " Prasfatio in Epistolam ad Eo- 
manos," p. 97, torn. v. Witenbergse, 1553. 

a Augustine's words are : — " Coronat te quia dona sua coronat, non merita 
tua." — Aug. in Psl., cii, p. 1116, torn, iv, part ii. Paris, 1681. " Ex Indice 
Augustini delent — 'Non merita nostra, sed dona sua Deus coronat nobis,'" 
ice. — Index Expurg. jussu Bernardi de Sandoval et Roxas. Madriti, 1612. 

b " Formula Concordise" p. 700. Leipsic, 1756. 

T 2 



276 

which do not proceed from a true faith are, in fact, sins in the 
sight of God ; that is to say, they are denied with sin, because a 
corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit." This, also, was a 
saying of Augustine, " Works which are done without faith, 
though they seem good, are turned into sin," a — and was equally 
offensive to Romanists ; and we have, therefore, the declaration of 
Maldonati, a learned Jesuit writer, " We may not defend that 
opinion which the Council of Trent did of late justly condemn, 
although the great father St Augustine seems to be of that 
opinion." b And while I am on this subject of repudiation, and 
without expressing an opinion on doctrine, I may be permitted to 
state further matters of fact. Luther, in teaching the doctrine of 
justification by faith alone, whether he was right or wrong, was only 
echoing the teaching of the Church from the earliest ages. But 
well may the Church of Rome, through its modern apologists, deem 
this doctrine of justification by faith alone an invention of the six- 
teenth century, when we find the Church takes such pains to purge 
the works of the fathers where the doctrine is enunciated by them. 
For further examples, let me take Chrysostom, who was a Bishop 
of Constantinople about the year 406, and Jerome of the same age, 
a presbyter of Rome, who both held this doctrine. The former said, 
" This one thing I will affirm, that faith only by itself saveth ; " c 
and the latter held, " Faith only justifieth. Works do not justify." d 
This alleged impious heretical teaching, the pretended invention of 
heretics of the sixteenth century, but which, in fact, was the opinion 
held by canonized saints of the fifth century, is, nevertheless, 
ordered to be expunged from the works of the latter by the Index of 
Spain, published by Cardinal Quiroga, and reprinted at Saumur. e 

a " Sine fide etiam quaa videntur bona opera in peccata vertuntur."— 
Aug. cont. Duos Ep. Pelag. ad Bonif., p. 457, torn. xvi. Paris, 1690. 

*> Maid. " Com. in Matt." vii, 18, p. 171. Edit. Lug., 1615. 

c " Illud unum asseveraverim, quod sola fides per se salvum f ecerit." — 
Chrys. torn, iii, "De Fide et Lege NaturEe;" et torn, i, in Psalm, xiii. 
Paris, 1588. 

<* " Impium per solam fidem justificat Deus," &c. — Hier. torn, ix, in cap.iy, 
ad Pom. Basil, 1537. 

« "Ex Chrysostomi Indice, edit. Basilese, deleantur— ' Justificatio ex fide 
sola.' Ex Indice Hieronimi delendse sunt — ' Fides sola justificat. Opera 
non justificant.'" (p. 106). — Index Libr. Expurgat. per Quirog. Salmuri. 
1601 ; et Madriti, 1584. 



277 

This mode of dealing with a subject may be truly characteristic, 
the process, indeed, may be a convenient expedient (if not detected) 
for getting over a difficulty, but it is by no means creditable. Mr. 
Cobbett is apparently quite innocent of all knowledge of these pro- 
ceedings of the Roman Church. 

The passages from the early Christian writers are abundantly 
clear and specific on the true Catholic teaching revived by the 
Reformers. The substance of the doctrine is embraced in that 
beautiful sentence of Justin Martyr (a.d. 130) : — 

" He gave his own Son as a ransom for us ; the holy for the 
transgressors, the innocent for the guilty, the just for the unjust, 
the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for mortals. 
For what but his righteousness could hide our sins ? — or what way 
could we, who are transgressors and ungodly, be justified, except 
only in the Son of God ? " a 

And so, also, Tertullian (a.d. 201) : — 

" The faith by which the just shall live is the faith of the same 
God whose the law is, in which he that worketh is not justified." b 

Let it be understood then that the Reformers only brought back 
the Church to the belief of these apostolic men. 

To proceed in regular succession, Justin Martyr again said : — 

" To see God, it is granted men by faith alone. And what alone 
we see God by, by that alone we are justified." c 

Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 200) : — 

" Faith alone is the catholic salvation of mankind." d 

Origen (a.d. 230) :— 

" The apostle saith, that justification by faith alone is sufficient." e 

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (a.d. 370), or if not Ambrose, some 

a — rj t'ivi ducaiuQrjvaL dvvarbv Tovg avopovg rifiag, Kal a<rt€tlg, r) Iv fiavcp 
rg> v'up tov Qsov. — Just. Martyr ad Diognetum Epistola. Lutet. Parisiorum, 
1615. 

b " Ejus ergo Dei erifc fides in qua" vivet Justus ; cujus est lex, in qua, non 
justificatur operarius." — Tert. adv. Mariconem, lib. v, p. 464. Lutet. Paris- 
iorum, 1675. 

c 7riGTSi fiovy idtiv avyKsxwptirai. — Quoted by Birckbeck, " Protestant Evi- 
dence," vol. i, p. 165 ; reprint, London, 1849. 

Mia KaOoXi'Kt) rrjg dv9poj7r6rt]rog a-iorijpia i) Triartg. — Paedagog. 1. i, c. vi. 
Alexand. (Clem.) Opera Greece, ex Biblioth. Medicasa. Florent. 1550. 

e "Dicit Apostolus suflicere solius fidei justification em." — Origen, 1. iii, 
in Epist. ad Kom. c. iii ; edit. Basil. 1557. 



278 

writer, according to Bellarmine, of the same standing with him, a is 
very explicit in his teaching : — 

" They are justified by faith alone by the gift of God." — " Only 
faith is appointed to salvation." b 

But Ambrose — or whoever is the writer of these treatises attri- 
buted to Ambrose, all certainly of very ancient date, and certainly 
not written by Protestants of the sixteenth century — goes much 
further : he is absolutely heretical, worse than Luther himself. 
He says : — 

" Faith is the kingdom of heaven ; he then that hath faith hath 
the kingdom." " He calleth them blessed of whom God hath 
decreed that, without any labour or observation, they should be 
justified only by faith." " They are manifestly blessed whose sins 
are remitted without their labour; no work of repentance being- 
required, but only that they should believe," ccc. " He saith, no 
work of the law, but only faith, is to be given in the cause of 
Christ." " The law of the Spirit doth give liberty, requiring 
faith alone." " The foundation of God is faith, which containeth 
all that God has promised." c 

It will be observed, that this ancient writer, whoever he was, com- 
menting on the very text of St. Paul in question, talks of faith 
alone as justifying. Referring to the faith of Abraham, he says : — 

" They know that Abraham without the works of the law was 
1 justified only by faith.' " d 

a Auctor " Commentariorum in Epistolas Pauli " eequalis sine dubio Am- 
brosii fuit.— Bell. lib. iv, " De Justif." cap. 8. 

b "Sola > fide justificati sunt dono Dei." — Amb. Oper. in cap. iii. ad 
Eomanos, torn, v, p. 184 ; Basil. 1538. " Sola fides posita est ad salutein.'" 
— Ibid, in cap. ix, torn, v, p. 216. 

c " Fides regnrnn ccelorum est ; itaque qui habet fidem habet et regnum." 
— Amb. Oper. — in Luc. xiii, torn, v, p. 116. Basil. 1538. "Beatos dicit de 
quibus hoc sanxit Deus ut, sine labore et aliqua observations, sola fide justi- 
ficentur apud Deum," — In iv; ad Koman. " Manifeste beati sunt quibus, 
sine labore vel opere aliquo, remittuntur iniquitatos et peccata teguntur ; 
nulla ab his requisita poenitentise opera, nisi tanturn ut credant." — Boid. 
torn, v, p. 186. " Nullum opus dicit legis, sed solam fidem dandam in 
causa Christi." — In Roman, x, torn, v, p. 218. " Lex spiritus dat libertatem, 
solam fidem poscens."— -In 2 Cor. iii, torn, v, p. 292. " Fundamentum Dei 
fides, quse continet quse promisit Deus." — In 2 Tim. ii, torn, v, p. 405. 

d " Sciunt Abraham sine operibus legis per solam fidem justificatum."— 
Id. in Gralat. iii? torn, v, p, 329. 



279 

And as the learned Andrew Willet observes : — " By works of 
the law are understood all good works and graces, and not the law 
of Moses only ; as Jerome expoundeth upon these words, ' No 
flesh is justified by the works of the law,' — ' Quod ne de lege Mosis 
tantum dictum putes,' &c. — which, lest you should think is spoken 
only of the law of Moses, and not of all God's commandments, 
the same Apostle writeth, saying, ' I consent to the law of God in 
the inward man,' &c." a 

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea (a.d. 370) : — 

"As it is written, ' Let him that boasteth, boast in the Lord.' 
In this is the perfect and complete boasting in God, that no one is 
extolled on account of his own righteousness ; but we know that 
he being destitute of real righteousness, is justified by faith only 
in Christ. b And Paul boasts in despising his own righteousness, 
and in seeking that which is of Christ, < the righteousness which 
is of God by faith.' " c 

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (a.d. 260), in spirit, if not in words, 
taught the same doctrine : — 

" Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to 
work ; but God has given free grace to all men by the justification 
of faith.'" 1 

Gregory Nazianzen (a.d. 370) : — 

" Confess Jesus Christ, and believe that he has risen from the 
dead, and thou shalt be saved. For believing only is righteous- 
ness." e 

Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (a.d. 406), is very clear 

a " Synopsis Papisini," vol. viii, p. 58, edit. London, 1852; to which 
book I am indebted for these extracts from the Commentaries on Paul's 
Epistles attributed to Ambrose. 

b Ilt'ora St povy rij sig Xpurruv deSiicaiuievov. — Basil. " Horn, de Humili- 
tate," torn, ii, p. 159. Bened. edit. Parisiis, 1730. 

c The reader is referred to Finche's " Sketch of the Romish Controversy," 
(vol. ii, p. 267, et seq., Lond. 1850,) for this and other extracts from Basil 
and other fathers to the like effect. 

d " Merces quidem ex dono nullo est, debita ex opere. * * * Sed 
gratuitam gratiam Deus omnibus ex fidei justificatione donavit." — Com. in 
Matt., ch. xx, p. 588. Parisiis, 1652. 

e l Ono\6yr]<jov 'Irjcrovv Xpicrrbv, kci'i 7rca~£vcrov on Ik veicpuv lyrjysprai, kcci 
%w9i)(Ty. Ancaiocvvr] fxlv yap, kcu to tcigt£vgcii fiovov. — Greg. Nazian. Orat* 
xxxii, p. 596, Bened. Parisiis, 1778. 



280 

in what he teaches on this subject. He says (in Rom. i, 17, 
horn, ii) : — 

" Thou obtainest righteousness not by thine own labour, but by 
gift from above, bringing one thing only from within, namely, faith." 

And again (in Tit. i, 13, horn, iii) : — 

" If thou trustest faith with it, why bringest thou in other 
things ?" a As much as to say, as if faith were not sufficient to 
justify. 

And so in his Commentary on the Epistles to the Hebrews and 
Thessalonians : — 

" And it is reasonable for us to say this at present ; let us 
approach asking with boldness. Let us bring faith alone, and 
he gives all things." — " For these things are the sustaining means 
of salvation ; not at all by ivorks, not at all by uprightness, but 
by true faith." b 

Theodoret, the historian, and Bishop of Cyprus (a.d. 430), said 
that we came to attain those spiritual good things, not by any 
laudable work of ours, but by faith alone. 

Augustine (a.d. 420), in addition to what I have cited, said that 
" the faith of Christ alone purine th the heart ;" and again, " Faith 
being absent, what other justice of man remaineth ?" d 

Fulgentius (a.d. 520) and also Primasius (a.d. 545), Bishops of 
Africa : — 

" We are freely justified by faith only, and not by works." e 

a iv \iovov el(7(pkp(jjv o'ikoOev, to TritJTtvoai — utg ovk apuovariQ t7)q iriar&aQ 
ducaiuHTcu. See Birckbeck's " Protestant Evidence," vol. i, p. 335 ; reprint, 
London, 1849. 

b Tovto Kai r/fiiv tvKaipov vvv t'liruv ' 7rpo<T£|C>xw/«0a /xera vapprjcpiag 
aiTOvvTtg. Movov tt'igtiv Trpoaaydy^ynv Kai Trdvra SiSwcri. — In Epist. ad Heb. 
C. iv, horn, vii, torn, xii, p. 166, edit. Parisiis, 1839, Bened. Taiira yap 
f/p-uiv iori to. avveicTiica rfjg oo&TripiaQ. OvSafiov curb spy<ov, ovda/xov airb 
KaiToOufiaTwv, a\\a did irforeiog a\r]Quag.— In Thess. c. ii, bom. iv, torn, xii, 
p. 386, edit, ut supra. 

c dXXd diet [ioihiq iriaTewg, — "De Curandis Grsecor." Effectib. 1. vii, quoted 
by Birckbeck, as above, p. 335. 

«i " Sola fides Cbristi mundat."— (Lib. i, cont. Duas Epist. Palag. c. xxi.) 
" Fide evacuata, quse hominis justitia remanet ?"— Epist. 95, oper. toni. ii, 
p. 163. Lugdunum, 1586. 

e "Non ex operibus, sed sola fide per gratiam, vitam babere te nosti."— 
Primasius in cap. ii, ad Galat. in Epist. Pauli. Paris, 1543. Fulgent. 
" De Incar. et Grat." cap. xvi, oper. Basil, 1587. to tbe like effect. 



281 

The Venerable Bede (a.d. 720) :— 

" No man shall be saved by the righteousness of works, but only 
by the righteousness of faith." a 

Hamo, Bishop of Halberstadt, and cousin of Bede (a. p. 840^, 
said : — 

" Faith only saveth." b 

And so I might proceed from period to period. Anselm, 
<Ecumenus, and Theophylact, of the eleventh century ; St. Bernard 
of the twelfth century, and Robert, Abbot of Duits, called Rupertus 
Tuitiensis ; all these taught the doctrine of justification by faith 
alone ; so also did Cardinal Cusanus in the fifteenth century , d 

And lastly, the decretals of Rome, which bind all Romanists with- 
out exception, as their canon law, are also explicit on the subject. 
In these we read : — 

" The grace of God doth not require mourning, or fighting, or 
any work, but faith alone, and it forgiveth all freely." e 

It may be asserted that the above refers to grace they allege to 
be conferred in baptism ; but it is not so, for the same canon law 
of Rome teaches the great importance of the " simple believing 
theory " even in those who are not baptised. 

" He that hath Christ by faith, though he have not baptism, 



a " Per justitiam factorum nullus salvabitur, sed per solam justitiam 
fidei." — Bedse Opera, in Psal. lxxvii, torn. viii. Basil, 1563. 

i» " Fides sola salvat." — In omnes Pauli Epist. Epist. G-alat., cap. iii. 
Colon. 1534. 

c " Credat in te qui justificas impium, et solam justificatus per fidem, 
pacem habebit ad Deum." — Bernard, sup. Cantic. Serm, xxii. " Et innuens 
solam fidem sufficere ad salutem." — Epist. lxxvii. Bernardi Opera. Paris, 
1513. 

d "Paulus. — Quid igiturjustificateum qui justitiam assequitur? Tartarus. 
— Non merita, abas non esset gratia, sed debitum. Vis igitur quod sola 
fides justificet ad perceptionem seternae vitse 1 Paulus. — Volo." — Nicol. De 
Cusa. "De Pace Fidei," cap. xv, opera, Basil. 1565. 

For a part of the above I am indebted to Birkbeck's " Protestant 
Evidence." 

e " Sine poenitentia sunt dona et vocatio Dei, quia gratia Dei in baptismatc 
non requirit gemitum, non requirit planctum, vel opus aliquid, sed solam 
fidem et omnia gratis condonat." — " Decret. Greg. IX.," part, iii, dist. iv, c. 
xcix. " Corpus Juris Canonici," col. 1215, part i. Lipsias, 1839. 



282 

hath the foundation besides which none other can be laid, that is, 
Christ Jesus." a 

To all this Romanists can have but one reply, and that is, that 
the faith spoken of in these several instances is the faith that 
worketh by charity, and is of no avail, unless it come from the 
heart and is not a dead faith. There can be no doubt of this being 
true, but I would beg Romanists to extend the same charitable 
interpretation to Luther and the Church of England, when the?/ 
talk of a justifying faith also. We do not, before God, put forward 
merits as a claim for a reward ; for we teach that all we can dc 
must fall far short of the standard of perfection ; we are only 
doing our duty, and the reward is a matter of free gift on the part 
of the Almighty ; and herein lies the distinction between Romish 
teaching and that of the Reformed Churches. 

As a matter of fact, then, Luther and the Reformers only revived 
the doctrine which had been taught in the Church from the days 
of the Apostles. 

I have dwelt much longer on this subject than I had intended; 
but, as it was the great pivot on which the Reformation turned, my 
readers will, no doubt, excuse the digression. 

The last accusation against Luther is, that one of his motives 
for opposing the Pope proceeded from the fact that the Pope 
entrusted the sale of indulgences to the Dominican monks, and 
not to the order to which Luther belonged. 15 Every single charge 
made by Mr. Cobbett has had its origin from Jesuit writers. 
This charge, coming from the same source, is as false as all the 
others ; but, strange to say, those who impute to Luther this 
unworthy motive have not one word of condemnation for that 
soul-destroying system of imposture and wickedness, the admitted, 
fact of the sale of indulgences. Let Romanists clear their Church 
of this monstrous piece of iniquity, and they may then, with clean 
hands, proceed to question the motives of Martin Luther for having 
exposed the system of trafficking with the souls of men ! 

With regard to the other " greedy and villanous foreign Re- 

a " Qui Christum habet per Mem, etiam si baptismum non habet, habet 
utique fund-amentum piaster quod aliud poni non potest, quod est Christus 
Jesus." — "Decret. Greg. IX.," lib. iii, tit. xiii, c. iii. Ibid, part ii, col. 623, 

b 9D. 



283 

formers " a named by Mr. Cobbett, I propose to dismiss them with 
a few brief extracts from the writings of their biographers (princi- 
pally Dr. Erasmus Middleton), but which might be almost indefinitely 
multiplied. As Mr. Cobbett has not dealt with these, otherwise 
than by making one sweeping condemnation, I have no specific 
charges to answer— I can only offer my readers the bane and 
the antidote. 

ZUINGLIUS. 

Erasmus Middleton, the eminent biographer, speaks of the 
" Christian heroism of that great man;" and says that the last 
wound he received in battle " extinguished one of the most valuable 
lives that ever added lustre to religion and learning." b 

BEZA, 

Says Middleton, was " one of the chief pillars of the Reformed 
Church ; he was a man of extraordinary merit, and very instru- 
mental in conducting the Reformation. He was looked upon as 
the chief of the Protestants in France and Switzerland. The 
Romanists commonly called him the Huguenot Pope. And Pope 
Sextus Y. caused two conferences to be held, at which he himself 
was present, to deliberate about the means of depriving the 
Protestant party of the great support they had in the person of 
Beza. They would have assassinated or poisoned him, if it had 
been possible that any enterprise against his person could succeed. 
What could be said more to the honor of this minister, than the 
representing him as a man who made the Pope and Cardinals un- 
easy as to affairs of state, for there was no controversy in the case." c 

Mr. Cobbett has omitted to name the " celebrated divine." 
Melancthon, 
" One of the wisest and greatest men of his age." d But this 
gentle and pure minded man, as one of the leading Reformers, 
comes under Mr. Cobbett's general and sweeping condemnation as 
an " atrocious miscreant." 

The talent displayed in some of Melancthon's publications at this 
time drew forth from no less a pen than that of Erasmus the follow- 
ing commendation : — ." What hopes may we not entertain of Philip 

a 200. 

i> Micldleton's " Biograpbia Evangelica," vol. i, p. 3. London, 1779, 

c Ibid, vol. ii, p. 370. 

d Ibid, vol. i, p. 471. 



284 

Melancthon, "who, though as yet very young, and almost a boy, is 
equally to be admired for his knowledge in Greek and Latin lite- 
rature. What quickness of invention ! What purity of diction ! 
What powers of memory ! What variety of reading ! What mo- 
desty and gracefulness of behaviour ! " a 

His character was thus ably summed up by the German his- 
torian Mosheim: — b 

" Melancthon had the rare talent of discerning truth in all 
its most intricate connections and combinations, of comprehending 
at once the most abstract notions and expressing them with the 
utmost perspicuity and ease. And he applied this happy talent in 
religious disquisitions with unparalleled success ; insomuch that it 
may be safely affirmed that the cause of true Christianity derived 
from the learning and genius of Melancthon more signal advan- 
tages, and a more effectual support, than from any of the other 
theologians of the age. His love of peace and concord, which was 
partly owing to the sweetness of his natural temper, made him de- 
sire with ardour that a reformation might be effected without 
producing a schism in the Church, and that the external com- 
munion of the contending parties might be preserved uninterrupted 
and entire. This spirit of mildness and charity, carried, perhaps, 
too far, led him sometimes to make concessions that were neither 
consistent with prudence nor advantageous to the cause in which 
he was engaged. It is, however, certain that he gave no quarter 
to those more dangerous and momentous errors that reigned in the 
Church of Rome, but maintained, on the contrary, that their ex- 
tirpation was essentially necessary in order to the restoration of 
true religion. When the hour of real danger approached, when 
things bore a formidable aspect, and the cause of religion was in 
imminent peril, this man, usually so timorous, was converted all at 
■once into an intrepid hero, who looked danger in the face with un- 
shaken constancy, and opposed his adversaries with invincible for- 
titude. Had his courage been more uniform and steady, his de- 
sire of reconciling all interests and pleasing all parties less violent 
.and excessive, his triumph over the superstitions imbibed in his 
infancy more complete, he must deservedly have been considered as 
one of the greatest among men." 

a Opera. Annot. in Nov. Test, ad I. Thess. c. 2. 

b Mosheirn's " Eccl. Church History," vol. iii, p. 109. London, 1841. 



285 

Calvin. 

With regard to Calvin, the great French Reformer, Middleton 
says that he " was esteemed in the French congregations as one of 
the most able and best qualified of men to teach and defend the 
doctrines of the Reformation." " He was held in the highest vene- 
ration by the foreign Reformed Church, and not less so by his own." 
Dr. Hoyle wrote a panegyric on his "indefatigable industry." 
" What shall I speak of his indefatigable industry, almost beyond 
the power of nature, which, paralleled with our loitering, will, I 
fear, exceed all credit ? It may be the truest object of admiration, 
how one lean, worn, spent, and wearied body could hold out." a 
" There are many among the Roman Catholics who would do justice 
to Calvin, if they durst speak their thoughts." And after naming 
his many acquirements, he adds, " The Papists, at last, have been 
obliged to acknowledge the falsity of these infamous calumnies 
published against the morals of Calvin. Their best pens have been 
contented to say, that, though he was free from corporeal vices, he 
was not so from spiritual ones, such as slander, passion, avarice, 
and pride." He then proceeds to show that Calvin was wholly 
free from these also. 5 

I cannot pass the name of Calvin without referring to a subject 
which has undeservedly cast a dark shade over his memory. I 
refer to the persecution and cruel death of Michael Servetus. 
The burning of Servetus has been imputed to Calvin, as well by 
Protestants as Romanists. Persecutions for religion or heresy 
are to be reprobated by whomsoever practised ; and it is but a 
sorry excuse to fall back on the defence — that execution for heresy 
was according to the law, genius, and spirit of the age, and that 
Servetus was avowedly, and, in fact, condemned for blaspheming 
the Holy Trinity. That Servetus was burnt to death there is no 
doubt, but the question is — Had Calvin any hand, voice, or responsi- 
bility in the transaction ? We have first his own denial, which we 
find in a work written against Albertus Pighius and Georgius the 
Sicilian. He meets the charge in the following words : — 

a " Biographia Evangelica," p. 57, vol. ii. London, 1779 

Ibid, p. 53. 
c See Calvin's " Calvinism," translated by Dr. Cole, part ii, pp. 128, 129. 
London, 1857. 



286 

" In what particular act of mine you accuse me of cruelty, I am 
anxious to know. I myself know not that act, unless it be with 
reference to the death of your great master, Servetus. But that I 
myself earnestly entreated that he might not be put to death his 
judges themselves are witnesses, in the number of whom, at that 
time, two were his staunch favourers and defenders." In his 161st 
letter, addressed to his intimate friend Farel, he wrote as follows : — 
" The deputies sent to the Swiss confederacy are now returned. 
They are all unanimous in declaring that Servet revived the impious 
errors with which Satan of old disturbed the Church, and that he is 
a monster not to be tolerated. The most moderate are those of 
Basle ; those of Zurich are the most violent of all. They most 
forcibly describe the atrocity of his impieties, and exhort our 
senate to have recourse to a severe punishment. Those of Shaf- 
hausen have also signed ; and there are letters of those of Berne, 
besides the letters of their senate, by which ours are not a little 
-excited. " * * * " To-morrow he is to be led to the stake. 
We have exerted ourselves to have the kind of death to which he is 
condemned commuted, hut in vain." 

That Calvin should be specially reprobated, even if he held that 
the sentence was according to the law, when the same opinion was 
maintained by almost every class of divines of those days, is at 
least unjust. Servetus was condemned and anathematised by the 
Romish Bishops, and we find Dr. Field, Dean of Gloucester, a.d. 
1610, Divinity Reader to Lincoln's Inn, in his learned work, " The 
Church," and recently reprinted by the " Ecclesiastical History 
Society," under the auspices of the present Bishop of Oxford, thus 
expresses himself : — 

" Servetus revived, in our time, the heresy of Sabellius, long 
since condemned in the first ages of the Church. But what is 
that to us ? How little approbation he found among us, the just 
and honourable proceeding against him at Geneva will witness to all 
posterity." a 

The " Historia Serveti," by Allwoerden (Halmstsedt, 1727), a 
writer by no means favourable to Calvin, shows that Servetus was 
condemned to death as an arch-heretic in France (not only at 
Vienne, but by the government and, in general, in all Spain, in 
Italy, and by the Inquisition). In page 105, section 48, he states, 
fc Lib. iii, c, xxvii, p. 288, E. H. S. edition. Cambridge. 1817, 1852. 



287 

*' It appears from the whole history of his [Servetus'] confinement, 
that the law concerning the punishment and burning of heretics 
had not yet been abolished in Geneva at this time." 

Derlincourt published in Geneva, in 1667, " Defense cle Calvin," 
in which he proves that not only did Calvin have no hand or voice 
in the condemnation of Servetus, but that he first did all he could 
to convert him, and then to avert the cruel decree of the senate ; 
and that he used the most strenuous efforts to snatch him at least 
from the punishment of being burnt at the stake. That Calvin 
accused Servetus of deadly heresy, and joined with all the others 
in declaring him worthy of punishment, is true. The same All- 
woerden (page 95) quotes the following words of Calvin. " I do 
not see why, if what they reproach me with (that I caused the 
death of Servet) were true, I should deny it, since I do not at 
all conceal that it was at my instigation he was detained in this 
city, that he might plead his cause in a court of justice." But 
this is very different to the charge of actually condemning Servetus 
to the flames ; nor is it true that Calvin accompanied the victim 
to the stake. And, lastly, Jaques Basnages, in his excellent work, 
" Histoire de L'Eglise," a says, " Calvin and all the clergy depre- 
cated his death, and those who think that he authorised it, instead 
of defending this action, confess that it was a remnant of Popery." 

Documentary evidence has come to light which, happily, has 
set the disputed question completely at rest, namely, the original 
records of the " Little Council of Geneva," which condemned 
Servetus, and which formed the subject of a small treatise written 
by M. Albert Billiet, a Geneva clergyman, and which has been 
translated by Dr. Tweedy. 

" In this seasonable production," says Dr. Gardner, 5 " sufficient 
evidence is adduced to free Calvin from the slanderous imputation 
under which he has so long laboured, of being, to no small extent, 
instrumental in procuring the condemnation to capital punishment 
of this arch-heretic. After a careful and detailed examination of 
the whole circumstances, as given in the original records, Rilliet 
arrives at the conclusion that Servetus was ' condemned by the 
majority of his judges, not at all as the opponent of Calvin, scarcely 
as a heretic, but essentially as seditious.' His sentiments, as 

a Tom. ii, liv. 25, c. 6. Rotterdam, 1729. 

b « The Faith of the World," vol. i, p. 42G. Fullarton & Co., Edinburgh. 



288 

appears from the evidence brought forward, particularly towards 
the close of the trial, were not only of an infidel and blasphemous 
character, but seditious and revolutionary. It was the latter aspect 
advanced by his accusers that chiefly, if not exclusively, led to his 
being burnt at the stake. The court which tried the case was a 
civil, not an ecclesiastical, tribunal ; and Calvin, besides not being 
a member of the Council, was even excluded from political rights 
along with the other clergy, by being. denied a seat in the ' Council 
General.' Moreover, Servetus was not condemned by Calvin's 
adherents in the ' Little Council,' they themselves being a small 
minority, and wholly unable to control the decision of the body. 
The stain, therefore, which has long unjustly attached to one of 
the ablest and most esteemed of the leaders of the Reformation 
must be considered as now wholly removed, by the publication, at 
the late period, of the authentic documents which Rilliet has 
providentially brought to light." 

This scandal is, I trust, for ever set at rest. 

Such, then, is the " nest of (foreign) atrocious miscreants," whom 
honest William Cobbett names to condemn. Truly, in such company, 
it would be a credit to escape his praise ! 

I proceed now to note the English Reformers who have by 
name come under Mr. Cobbett's special anathema. 

CRANMER. 

As Luther has been, and is still, singled out for more 
especial attack, because he was, in fact, the great leader of the 
Reformation in Germany, so Cranmer, for the same reason, is 
singled out for vituperation and condemnation as the alleged 
leader of the Reformation in England. Happily for the cause of 
the Reformation, its truth or falsehood does not depend on the 
character of individuals, nor is it my intention to assert that the 
Reformers were faultless. 

" The Reformation builds on a rock, removing the hay and 
stubble, the perishing materials heaped on it by Popes, to secure 
our Church a firm establishment on Christ the foundation. 
Cranmer we look upon but as an instrument used by God to 
clear away the rubbish ; and, whatever his personal frailties or 



289 

infirmities may have been— for Christ has appointed men, not 
angels, for the work of his ministry here ; the doctrines of the 
Gospel by him restored are not the less pure, nor the corruptions 
he pointed out less abominable ; and the better use we make of 
that blessing which he, by his labour among us, procured for us, 
we shall esteem him the more highly in love for his work's sake, 
whatever his faults were in other respects." a 

" God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound 
the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to 
confound the things that are mighty; and base things of the 
world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and 
things which are not, to bring to nought things that are." b 
" God is the judge : he putteth down one, and setteth up another." c 
" Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever, for wisdom and 
might are His : and He changeth the times and the seasons : He 
removeth kings, and setteth up kings : He giveth wisdom unto the 
wise, and knowledge to them that know] understanding : He re- 
vealeth the deep and secret things." d " How unsearchable are 
His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" e 
, Before I proceed to the specific charges against Cranmer, it is 
well that I should repeat here Mr. Cobbett's estimate of the 
Archbishop generally. He thus introduces Cranmer : — " What I 
am going to relate of the conduct of this Archbishop * * * is 
calculated to make us shudder with horror, to make our very 
bowels heave with loathing ; to make us turn our eyes from the 
paper and resolve to read no further." f "If his hypocrisy did not 
make the devil blush, he could have no blushing faculties in him." s 
"This wonderful hypocrite." 11 "This matchless, astonishing 
hypocrite." * " The prince of hypocrites." J " This precious 
hypocrite." k " This most mischievous of all villains." x " An 
apostate ;" m and that he " was imprisoned most justly as a 
traitor,"" and a "felon." "A wretch, covered with robberies, 
perjuries, treasons, and bloodshed." ? "A monster of iniquity." <i 

a Ridley's " Review of Phillip's ' Life of Cardinal Pole,' " quoted by Todd 



in his "Vindication of Cranmer," p. 13. 


London, 1826. 




b 1 Cor. i, 27, 28. 


c Psalms, lxxv, 7. 




•i Daniel, ii, 20, 21. 


e Romans, xi, 33. 




f 66. s68. i»70. 


i GS. J 200. 


K2C0. 


1 210. m 225. n 225. 


25S. p 251. 


« 252. 



290 

" Twenty-nine years," lie adds, "were spent [by CranmerJ in the 
commission of a series of acts which, for wickedness in their 
nature and for mischief in their consequences, are absolutely 
without a parallel in the annals of human infamy." a " His 
infamy * * * was surpassed by nothing of which human 
depravity is capable." b " His name ought to stand for aye 
accursed in the calendar." c " What man," he exclaims, " with 
an honourable sentiment in his mind is there, who does not 
almost wish to be a foreigner, rather than be the countryman of 
Cranmer?" d "Henry's chief adviser and abettor was Thomas 
Cranmer, a name which deserves to be held in everlasting exe- 
cration ; a name wdrich we could not pronounce without almost 
doubting of the justice of God, were it not for our knowledge of 
the fact, that the cold-blooded, most perfidious, most impious, 
most blasphemous caitiff expired, at last, amidst those flames 
which he himself had been the chief cause of kindling." e 

Such language requires, one w T ould think, some justification, 
some convincing proofs ; but there are literally none whatever in 
Mr. Cobbett's book. 

I may here be pardoned for introducing the words of Sir 
Thomas Denman, they are so apposite in the present instance, 
though applied by him to another work written by William 
Cobbett : — " If these are real extracts from the writings of 
William Cobbett, they exhibit a degree of unprincipled audacity, 
and of profligate and unfeeling disregard of every moral and social 
obligation, such as no man ever betrayed before. If the quotations 
in this book are genuine, he is among the most infamous of 
mankind." f One can scarcely attribute any other motive in Mr. 
Cobbett than a pecuniary one. Mr. Cobbett was paid for this 
sacrifice of truth, honour, and principle. He himself tells us that 
" the retailers of falsehood stick at nothing; there is no falsehood 
too bold for them ; they know very well they shall be exposed, and 
that all good men will despise them, but they value not the opinions 
of good men; they make sure of the wages of their falsehoods and 
calumnies, and having those wages they are perfectly dead to all 

a 251. b 105. c 157. d 79. c 64. 

f See " Cobbett's Penny Trash," March, 1831, p. 21. British Museum 
Index, " Periodicals," VIII, 775. 



291 

feelings of shame and conscience." a Mr. Cobbett wrote this in 
1805 ; a few years served to obliterate his moral perceptions. His 
trading with the relics of the infidel Tom Paine was a good 
encouragement for a Jesuit to tender a bribe to secure his services 
as " a Protestant." The public sale of those relics was a passport. 
It was in 1819 that Mr. Cobbett publicly advertised the sale of the 
treasured locks of the infidel. Here is the announcement which 
appeared in the thirty-fifth volume of his " Political Register," 
p. 784 ; I give the italics and capitals as advertised : — " Every 
hair of Paine' s head would be a treasure to the possessor ; and this 
hair is in my possession. * * . * / intend to have it put into 
gold rings. * * * These I shall sell at a guinea a piece 
beyond the cost of the gold and workmanship ! * * * It is my 
intention, when the rings are made, to have the workman with me, 
to give out the hair, and to see it put in myself, then to write in 
my own hand a certificate on parchment, and to deliver it with each 
7n?ig." Here is a genial soil for a Jesuit to work upon — a relic- 
monger ! The substance of Cobbett's book is founded exclusively 
on the writings of Jesuits, served up in the language of " Cobbett," 
which no one could imitate. 

It is worthy of notice that the Romish historian Dr. Lingard, 
in his history of the reign of Henry VIII., has preserved a 
most marked silence with respect to Cranmer's character. There 
is policy, but not wisdom, in this silence. Dr. Lingard seems to 
have been aware that if he sketched the character of Cranmer, 
truth and candour would compel him to exhibit the light as well 
as shade of his character. As, therefore, he was determined to say 
nothing good of him, he has escaped the ungrateful task of 
acknowledging his excellences by omitting altogether a portrait of 
him. And this is the more to be wondered at since Cranmer occu- 
pied a prominent part, politically and ecclesiastically, in the events 
of this and the subsequent reign. Is it to be supposed that such 
an omission would have accidentally occurred in the writings of a 
zealous Romanist while writing of the history of that period, and 
of the individual who most affected his own religion ? We are not, 
however, in want of impartial testimony. Every writer of any 
note has given credit to Cranmer for gentleness, mildness, and an 
amiability of character almost amounting to a weakness. Let me 
a Cobbett's " Political Register," vol. x, p. 102. 

u 2 



292 

take the learned Dr. Kees, in his " Encyclopaedia: a Universal 
Dictionary of Arts, Science, and Literature." London, 1819. 
Under the title " Cranmer," he says: — "Thomas Cranmer was 
the most eminent prelate that ever filled the see of Canterbury. 
* * * That he was a great and good man in many respects 
none will deny ; but it would be foolishness, and to posterity un- 
justifiable, to attempt to conceal his faults. Gilpin, speaking of 
the noble stand which Cranmer made against the Six Articles 
Act, says : — ' The good Archbishop never appeared in a more truly 
Christian light than on this occasion. In the midst of so general 
a defection he alone made a stand. Three days he maintained 
his ground and baffled the arguments of all opposers ; but argu- 
ment was not their weapon, and the Archbishop saw himself obliged 
to sink under superior power. Henry ordered him to leave the 
house ; the Primate refused ; it was God's business, he said, and 
not man's. And when he could do no more he boldly entered his 
protest. Such an instance of fortitude is sufficient to wipe off 
many of those courtly stains which have fastened on his memory. 7 
His behaviour as a Christian in the forgiveness of injuries (which 
is the touchstone of pure principles) was exemplified in the case of 
the Duke of Norfolk. ' The last act of this reign,' says Gilpin, 
' was an act of blood, and gave the Archbishop a noble opportunity 
of showing how well he had learned to forgive an enemy. Henry 
had ordered the Duke to be attainted, contrary to justice. No man 
had been more the enemy of Cranmer than the Duke ; yet, so far 
was he from exulting in the opportunity of vengeance that he 
viewed the measure with horror, and opposed the bill with all his 
might, and when his opposition was vain he left the house with 
indignation, and returned to Croydon.' To men of learning 
Cranmer was a generous patron and friend; he maintained an 
intimate and constant correspondence with most of the distinguished 
scholars in Europe. He was a great economist of his time, rising 
generally, at all seasons, at five in the morning, and employing 
every hour with industry and care. In his manners he was pleasing 
and amiable, mild and cheerful in his temper, and given to hospi- 
tality, often beyond the ample means which he enjoyed." 

After citing some acts of Cranmer's life during his persecutions, 
Dr. Eees proceeds to extol his " lenity and mildness, for which he 
was always so much distinguished. He never persecuted any of 



293 

his enemies, but, on the contrary, truly forgave even the inveterate 
Gardiner, on his writing a supplicatory letter to him for that 
purpose. The same lenity he showed towards Dr. Thornton, the 
suffragan of Dover, and Dr. Barber, who, though entertained in 
his family and entrusted with his secrets, had ungratefully con- 
spired with Gardiner to take away his life." And a late biographer 
of Cranmer, in his "Lives of the Archbishops," a represents 
'Cranmer as " a good, earnest, and upright man," who " did not, 
in the plenitude of his power, forfeit his character as a humane 
man." 

Erasmus Middleton does not hesitate to designate Cranmer as a 
■■" great and good man," b and says that " he was an open, generous, 
honest man ; a lover of truth, and an enemy of falsehood and 
superstition. He was gentle and moderate in his temper; and, 
though heartily zealous in the cause of the Reformation, yet a 
friend to the persons of those who most strenuously opposed 
it. Thus, in the year 1534, he endeavoured to save the lives of 
Bishop Fisher and Thomas More, &c. He was a great patron 
of learning and the universities, and extended his care also to 
those Protestant foreigners who fled to England from the troubles 
of Germany," &c. c 

Can it be possible that Mr. Cobbett was referring to the same 
individual ? 

The insidious manner in which the attacks on Cranmer are 
made is truly characteristic of the writer. Cobbett charges 
Henry VIII. with being a tyrant ' ' bent on destroying the Catholic 
Church, and not less bent on the extirpation of the followers of 
Luther and his tribe of new sects. To follow him step by step, 
and in minute detail, through all his butcheries and all his burnings, 
would be to familiarise one's mind to a human slaughter-house 
and a cookery of cannibals." d " This execrable tyrant soaked the 
earth with Protestant blood, and filled the air with roasting flesh." e 
" Throughout the whole of this bloody work, Cranmer, who was the 
Primate of the King's religion, was consenting to, and aiding and 
abetting in, the murdering of Protestants as well as Catholics." f 

a Dr. Hook, 2nd series, vol. ii, pp. 214-248. London, 1868. 

b " Biographia Evangelica," vol. i, p. 434. London, 1779. 
c Ibid, p. 467. 
d 102. 103. f 104. 



294 

" The infamy of Cranmer, in assisting in sending people to the 
flames for entertaining opinions which he afterwards confessed 
that he himself entertained at the time he was so sending them, 
can be surpassed by nothing of which human depravity is capable." a 
And then, without citing one single case or example in which 
Cranmer was directly or indirectly engaged, he deliberately begins 
another chapter by saying : — " We left the King and Cranmer at 
their bloody work." b I do not overlook the cases of More and 
Fisher. It is notorious that Cranmer used every exertion to get them 
liberated, and was deeply affected by their fate. Even Dr. Lingard, 
who introduces this subject, confesses that Cranmer would, if pos- 
sible, have spared their lives. Mr. Cobbett does not dare to charge 
Cranmer with any participation in these executions, but quietly 
introduces, shortly after, the following passage : — " These horrid 
butcheries were perpetrated, mind, under the Primacy of Foxe's 
great martyr Cranmer, and with the active agency of another 
ruffian named Thomas Cromwell." d He would, therefore, have 
his readers believe, though he does not dare to say it, that Cranmer 
was the adviser of the King, and responsible for the execution of 
More and Fisher, and all the other prosecutions of that reign ! 

After some extravagant generalities he states, that the court of 
Henry " was a great human slaughter-house — the master butcher, 
fat and jocose, sat in his place issuing orders for thp slaughter, while 
his High Priest, Cranmer, stood ready to sanction and to sanctify 
all his deeds," e Still not one single example cited, until we come 
to the execution of the Countess of Salisbury. Here Mr. Cobbett 
states that the Countess was charged with treason by Cromwell. 
It is, however, admitted that an Act of Parliament was passed 
for her attainder, as also that of the Marchioness of Exeter and two 
gentlemen : they were " condemned to death" The Marchioness 
was pardoned, the two men executed, and the Countess imprisoned, 
but afterwards beheaded on an insurrection breaking out. What 
Cranmer had to do with all this is not attempted to be shown; 
and, indeed, his name is not once mentioned in the whole trans- 
action. The next circumstance referred to is the death of Henry 
VIII. " The old tyrant died in 3 547, and by the end of 1549, 
Cranmer, who had tied so many Protestants to the stake for not 
being Catholic," &c., f " Cranmer, who, during the reign of Henry 

a 105. b 112, c 95. d 98. e 114. f 198. 



2D5 

VIII., had condemned people to the flames for not believing 
transubstantiation, was now ready to condemn them for believing 
it." a These are Mr. Cobbett's assertions. Now, I ask the Roman 
Catholic admirers of Mr. Cobbett's history — Whether they are 
prepared to justify such an accusation against this great and good 
man, (as times went,) by circulating a book containing such wickedly 
malicious slanders against Cranmer, and which does not even pre- 
tend to substantiate any one single charge by a proof ? I would 
ask any impartial reader of history to answer — Why Cranmer and 
Cromwell should be fixed upon, and every one else let free of the 
charge of persecution ? Sir Thomas More was an ardent Papist, 
we, therefore, hear nothing of his persecutions, and Cobbett, at 
the mere mention of his name, exclaims against the audacity of a 
comparison between him and Cranmer. But let us see what a 
foreign writer said of More. Voltaire, in his " Essay on the 
Manners and Spirit of Nations," b says : — 

" Almost all historians, and especially those of the Romish 
communion, are agreed in regarding Thomas More (or Moras) as 
a virtuous man, and a victim to the laws ; as a learned man, full 
of clemency and goodness, as, also, orthodox in his doctrine; but 
the truth is, he was superstitious, and was a barbarous persecutor. 
It was only a year before his execution that he caused a barrister 
named Bainham, who was accused of having favoured the opinions 
of the Lutherans, to be brought to his own house and having him 
whipped in his presence, and afterwards committed to the Tower, 
and there, in his presence, had him put to the torture, and after- 
wards burnt alive in Smithficlcl. Many other unhappy victims 
perished by the stake, chiefly at the instigation of this Chancellor, 
who is represented as a man so gentle and so tolerant. It was for 
such cruelties that he deserved to be put to death, and not for 
having denied the supremacy of Henry VIII. He was jocose even 
on the scaffold ; it would have been better if he had been of a more 
serious turn of mind, and less addicted to cruelty." 

It was, in fact, this same More who urged the King to put in 
force, and with vigour, the persecuting laws of the times. With 
cool effrontery Mr. Cobbc-tt, and, indeed, Romanists in general, 

» 200. 

b Cap. cxxxv, vol. iii, pp. 205, 206 ; vol. xviii, of the series of complete 
works. Paris, 1785. 



296 

shift the responsibility on Cranmer, and visit on him the acts of 
More. The readers of Mr. Cobbett's so-called history, will now 
be able to appreciate the amount of credit which is to be attached 
to his statements. 

To proceed to the specific charges against Cranmer. The first 
is, of course, his participation in the divorce of Henry VIII. from 
Catherine; and for this Mr. Cobbett heaps on the Archbishop 
the most abusive epithets. I have, in a former chapter relating to 
Henry VIII., traced the history of this transaction. I have shown — 
that in 1505 Henry and Catherine were formally separated, on the 
ground of the alleged illegality of the marriage, and were reunited 
in 1509 : that in April, 1527, the legitimacy of the offspring of 
Catherine was called in question by the Bomish Archbishop of 
Tarbes ; that, thereupon, Cardinal Wolsey and Longland, the latter 
the King's own confessor, declared the first marriage invalid, and 
urged on the King's divorce, and in which Wareham, Archbishop of 
Canterbury, joined, and the entire ecclesiastical and civil authorities 
in England concurred, except Sir Thomas More and Bishop 
Fisher : that Wolsey obtained in January, 1528, the written 
consent from the Pope sanctioning the divorce, with the permission 
for Henry to marry whom else he pleased, even one within the 
prohibited degree of affinity, and that he even recommended the 
King to marry again without consulting him. I have shown that 
in May, 1528, the Pope's Legate in England sought to induce the 
Queen to agree to the separation and go to a convent ; that in 
May, 1529, the Legate wrote to the Pope declaring his conviction 
that the King, in requiring a bull of confirmation of the divorce, 
was actuated by the purest motives, and not from hatred of the 
Queen or from any latent affection for another. I have shown that 
the Pope's confirmation was only withheld from fear of Charles V., 
Catherine's nephew; and that in June, 1529, the Legate, in open 
court declared the King and Queen to be living in incest, in con- 
sequence of their affinity. Up to this date Cranmer had not been 
heard of in the matter. Where is the proof, then, that Cranmer was 
Henry's chief adviser in this transaction ? The charge is untrue, for 
the separation had been advised and determined upon before Cranmer 
was consulted. Cranmer, under the circumstances before stated, 
was entrusted in 1530 to obtain, and did obtain, the opinions of 
every faculty and university on the Continent on the subject; 



297 

Oxford and Cambridge having been the first to pronounce that the 
first marriage was void ; and in this opinion the Court of Rome and 
the foreign universities unanimously concurred. I have also shown 
that in September, 1530, the Pope consented that the King, if the 
first marriage could not be annulled by reason of a previous exist- 
ing bull, might have a second wife. It was in July, 1531, that the 
King publicly separated from Catherine, having, in fact, been 
separated from " bed and board" in 1527. It was not until 
January, 1533, that the King married Anne Boleyn. If Cranmer 
is to be condemned for his concurrence in this, then the Pope, the 
Court of Rome — the whole of Christendom, in fact, in and out of 
England — participated in the guilt. The marriage was attended 
by all the ecclesiastical and civil dignitaries in the land, the Arch- 
bishop of Bayonne assisting. The Bishops of London and Win- 
chester bore the lappets of the Queen's robe in the procession. The 
matter of the divorce was thus determined upon before Cranmer 
was heard of, and completed before he was promoted to the see of 
Canterbury. 

, Thus fails one of Mr. Cobbett's gravest charges. He forgets to 
tell us that it was in February, 1533, that the Pope himself signed 
the bull of Cranmer's consecration as Archbishop, which was 
forwarded to England in March, and Cranmer was consecrated 
30th March, 1533 ; and this was after the Pope had full notice of 
Cranmer's advice and participation in the divorce ! 

The next charge is, that the " Pontifical form required Cranmer 
to swear obedience to the Pope." " And here," adds Mr. Cobbett, 
" a transaction took place that will at once show us of what sort 
of stuff the ' Reformation ' gentry were made. Cranmer, before 
he went to the altar to be consecrated, went into a chapelj and 
there made a declaration on oath, that, by the oath that he was 
about to take, and which, for the sake of form, he was obliged to 
take, he did not intend to bind himself to anything that tended to 
prevent him from assisting the King in making any such ' reforms ' 
as he might think useful in the Church of England." a And he 
charges Cranmer with deliberate perjury in the violation of his 
oath. This version is borrowed from Dr. Lingard and Mr. Butler, 
who follow Sanders the Jesuit. The alleged previous private oath 
is wholly unauthenticated. Cranmer's protest was made publicly, 

a 65. 



208 

and repeated a — first, in the chapter house of the church in which 
he was to he consecrated ; and, then, before those by whom he was 
consecrated at the altar of the church. The register of the Arch- 
bishop, in the library of manuscripts at Lambeth Palace, com- 
mences with the declaration to succeeding times, that his pro- 
testation was made openly and publicly before witnesses specially 
and officially named. Before taking that oath, he declared the 
limitations by which he secured himself in his allegiance to the 
King, and his determination to reform the Church against a power 
which would neither admit the supremacy of the former, nor the- 
necessity of alteration in the latter. 5 But why visit Cranmer and 
not also Gardiner with censure ? Bishop Gardiner took the same 
oath to the Pope, and subsequently refused to recognise his supre- 
macy. He maintained "that an engagement against right was 
by no means binding;" and he actually wrote a book in which 
he vindicated the supremacy of the King oyer the Pope of Pome, 
writing violently against the latter. 

Mr. Cobbett's next notable blunder is to make the date of the 
divorce after Cranmer's consecration. He tells us that, after the 
alleged false oath and elevation to the see, " the King lost no 
time in availing himself of Cranmer's aid;" and it is Cranmer's 
co-operation which Mr. Cobbett declares " was calculated to make 
us shudder with horror, to make our very bowels heave with 
loathing, to make us turn our eyes from the paper and resolve to 
read no further ;" and with mock affectation he acids : — " We are 
not to give way to these feelings ; if we have a- mind to know 
the true history of the Protestant Reformation we must keep 
ourselves cool," &c. d Mr. Cobbett himself is, of course, remark- 
ably dispassionate and truthful ! His abusive language, his un- 
proved assertion, added to the cool effrontery which he displays 
in shifting of times and dates to suit his lourpose, are astounding. 
"And then," exclaims Mr. Cobbett, " in order to enable the King 
to have two wives, the famous ecclesiastical judge had to play his 
part, and if his hypocrisy did not make the devil blush he could 
have no blushing faculties in him." — " Matchless, astonishing 

a See Strype's " Life of Cranmer," b. i, c. iv. 
b See Todd's "Vindication of Cranmer," p 45. London, 182S. 
c See Lord Herbert's " History of Henry YIIL," pp. 339, 390. Edition, 
1G49. «i &&. 



299 

hypocrite !" a Well ! Cranmer was in good company, tlie entire 
ecclesiastical hierarchy sided with him. The Archbishop sat, by 
virtue of his office, as President of the Council, which declared 
de facto the first marriage void in law. Mr. Cobbett, therefore, 
virtually includes in his condemnation the whole Council of the 
nation, every single one of them Romanists ! 

The next charge against Cranmer is immorality. " In violation 
of his clerical vows he had in private a woman of his own." b This 
is a bare-faced, atrocious falsehood ! The very worst of his 
enemies never brought such an accusation against Cranmer, and 
this is, I believe, the very first time any charge of the kind has 
been made. The Jesuit prompter of Mr. Cobbett dared not have 
put forward such a charge in his own name, but he employs Mr. 
Cobbett to do so for him, and thus hopes to throw the responsi- 
bility of the scandal on " Protestant" authority ! Again he says : — 
" The progress of this man [Cranmer] in the paths of infamy 
needed incontestible proof to reconcile the human mind to a belief 
in it. Before he became a priest he married ; after he became a 
priest, and had taken the oath of celibacy, he, being then in 
Germany and having become a Protestant, married another ivife 
while the first tvas still alive." c Here then is another most de- 
liberate and uncompromising falsehood ! Well may Mr. Cobbett 
urge us to keep cool. What honest-minded man can do so while 
dealing with such shameless statements, and then finding Romanists 
of the present day taking up such a book to instruct the people in 
the history of their country ? 

After having exhausted, as one would have supposed, his voca- 
bulary of vituperations, he turns to Cranmer again, and says : — 
" But black as these [other Reformers] are, they bleach the moment 
Cranmer appears in his true colors. But, alas ! where is the pen, 
or tongue, to give us those colors ! Of the sixty-five years that 
he lived, and of the thirty-five years of his manhood, twenty-nine 
years were spent in the commission of a series of acts " — not one 
of which Mr. Cobbett has hitherto named — " which, for wicked- 
ness in their nature and for mischief in their consequences, are 
absolutely without anything approaching to a parallel in the 
annals of human infamy !" But now he professes to enter into 
particulars to justify his charges : — " Being a fellow of a college 
a C8. b GO. c 101. 



300 

at Cambridge, and having of course made an engagement (as the 
fellows do to this day) not to marry, while he was a fellow he 
married secretly and still enjoyed his fellowship." a This, again, 
is untrue. It is a fact that fellows of colleges, as such, are not 
allowed to marry. Cranmer did not marry secretly ; nor, on his 
marriage did he still enjoy his fellowship. On his marriage in 
1525, he gave up his fellowship. As a proof that there was no 
subterfuge, secresy or fraud in the transaction, on this marriage he 
was appointed Divinity Eeader in Buckingham College, where, by 
the way, he became very obnoxious to the idle and ignorant friars. 
Fuller, in his " History of Cambridge," gives us a full account of 
this stage in Cranmer's life, and contains a complete refutation of 
the slanders against Cranmer. Fuller says that Cranmer's first 
wife died in her first childbed, and, thereupon, the college did him 
the singular honor of once more choosing him fellow, though 
such a step was contrary to the rules of the university. Fuller 
further records the fact, that Cranmer refused the nomination to a 
fellowship in Cardinal Wolsey's then new foundation at Oxford. 
Though the salary was much more considerable, and the road to 
preferment more accessible by the favour of that dignitary, he 
preferred a continuance with that foundation by whose members 
he had been so kindly distinguished. 

Mr. Cobbett is big in his denunciations and formidable in his 
vocabulary of vituperations, but his facts are correspondingly 
weak. "Whenever his charges take a specific form, they are in- 
variably untrue. And Eomanists of the present day do not 
hesitate to endorse all Cobbett's statements by putting forward 
such a book as a history of the Reformation in England to be 
extensively patronised ! 

Mr. Cobbett proceeds : — " While a married man he became a 
priest, and took the oath of celibacy." b This also is untrue. 
Priests were not and are not now required to take the oath of 
celibacy. It is only on those who enter monastic orders that 
the vow of celibacy is enforced. Wareham, the then Archbishop of 
Canterbury, Cranmer's predecessor, was a married man. c The 
law of celibacy of the priesthood in England had not then been 

a 251. b 251. 

c See Dr. Hook's "Lives of the Archbishops," 2nd series,, vol. ii, p. 318. 

London, 18G3. 



301 

enacted, and it was not the law of the Roman Church, but only a 
private enactment of a Pope ; and here again Mr. Cobbett is at fault. 
He continues : — " Going to Germany he married another wife, 
the daughter of a Protestant ' Saint,' so that he had now two 
wiyes at one time, though his oath bound him to have no wife at 
all. He, as Archbishop, enforced the law of celibacy, while he 
himself secretly kept his German frow in the palace of Canterbury, 
having, as we have ^een in paragraph 104, imported her in a 
chest." a Cranmer, then a widower, married Osiander's niece, 
while in Germany. He brought her to England, and she lived 
with him at his episcopal residence. But when the " Six Articles 
Act" was passed (which Cranmer so strenuously opposed), which 
made it unlawful for a priest to have a wife, he was compelled to 
separate from her, and he sent her back to her family ; but it is 
wholly false that he himself enforced the law of celibacy ; on the 
contrary, on the very first opportunity that arrived he obtained its 
repeal. As to the scandalous story that he had his wife " brought 
to England in a chest, with holes bored into it to give her air," and 
the upset of the chest by the sailors, &c, which Mr. Cobbett repeats 
with such malicious unction, that is of Jesuit invention. Strype 
refers to the circumstance as follows : — " The silly story comes 
through too many hands before it came to Parsons or Sanders 
to make it credible. Cranmer's son tells it to his wife, nobody 
knows when ; she, when a widow, tells it to a gentleman, nobody 
knows who ; and they tell it to Parsons, nobody knows when ! 
No place, person, or time mentioned ; and so all the faith of this 
matter lies upon a woman's evidence, and hers upon those two 
very honest men, Parsons and Sanders." b And this is literally all 
Mr. Cobbett has to advance against Cranmer (except that he 

a 251. 

b " Memorials," b. iii, c. xxxviii, p. 461. London, 1694. 

c It is strange that Cobbett has not referred to Cranmer's alleged share 
in the condemnation and burning of Joan Bocher, and the charge that he 
urged Edward to sign her death-warrant by directing his hand. I am not 
Cranmer's apologist where he erred. If the charge be true let him receive 
his share of blame with the Bishops of London and Ely, and the others who 
did actually sit in judgment and pass the sentence on her. I do not even 
advance the plea that the execution was in conformity with the law of the 
land. But it is by no means so clear that the charge is true ; and I refer 
the reader to the observations I have already made on the subject in my 
chapter on Edward, ante, pp. 145, 146. 



302 

winds up with stating that Cranmer suffered as a traitor and felon, 
as well as on the score of religion,) to justify the atrocious charges 
brought against and the epithets heaped upon him. This, again, 
is not true, for the political charges were wholly withdrawn, and 
he suffered for alleged heresy alone. The only reference to his 
martyrdom is as follows : — " The cold-blooded, most perfidious, 
most impious, most blasphemous caitiff expired, at last, amidst the 
flames which he himself had been the chief cause of kindling." a 
If Romanists are not ashamed of their champion, I can only say 
that nothing, in the estimation of honest men, could possibly be so 
damaging to their credit than that they should select as their 
advocate and patron William Cobbett, the author of the " History 
of the Protestant Reformation." 

hooper, ridley, and latimer. 

With regard to the other Reforming Bishops, Mr. Cobbett, 
without one attempt at proof or justification, designates Hooper, 
Ridley, and Latimer as " inferior in villany to Cranmer, but to 
few other men that had ever existed." b After the exposure of the 
attacks on the reputation of Cranmer, and having taken the prin- 
cipal charges against him and proved them to be false, it is scarcely 
necessary to go into the history of these illustrious Reformers and 
Martyrs, and vindicate their characters also, on such a vague and 
general statement. I shall, therefore, add the testimony of the 
learned Erasmus Middleton, who has written an able and im- 
partial biography of the Reformers. 

" Hooper," he tells, "was justly styled the 'great divine,' and 
a worthy conscientious man." c — " In his life he was blameless. He 
was a person of good parts and well versed in the learned tongues. 
He was a good philosopher, but a better theologist, had not his 
principles been too rigid." d " This learned and pious prelate was 
cruelly martyred, like Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to whom he 
has been justly compared, on the 9th February, 1555, in the 60th 
year of his age." e 

While in prison and condemned, Hooper wrote as follows : — 
"Imprisonment is painful; but liberty upon evil conditions is 

* 64. b 249. 

c Middleton's " Biographia Evangelica," vol. i, p. 317. London, 1779. 

o Ibid, p. 318. 

e Ibid, p. 328. 



303 

worse. The prison stinks ; yet not so milch as the sweet houses 
where the fear of God is wanting. I must be alone and solitary. 
It is better so to be, and have God with me, than to be in company 
of the wicked. Loss of goods is great ; but the loss of grace and 
God's favour is greater. I cannot tell how to answer before great 
and learned men ; yet it is better to do that than to stand naked 
before God's tribunal. I shall die by the bands of cruel men. He 
is blessed that loseth his life and findeth life eternal. There is 
neither felicity nor adversity in this world that is great, if it be 
weighed with the joys and pains of the world to come." a 

Eidley "was the most learned of all the English martyrs." b 
" His fine parts, and his great improvements in all the branches of 
literature necessary to a divine, gave him the first rank in his 
profession; and his life was answerable to his knowledge. He 
was of an easy obliging temper; and though he wanted not a 
proper spirit to support his character, or to do himself justice 
against the great and powerful, yet he was always ready to forgive 
any injuries or offences. His zeal for religion did not show itself 
in promoting severities against those who differed from it ; but 
in diligently explaining the parts that were misunderstood, and 
showing their foundations in Scripture and antiquity. The grace 
of his master was not only shown in the candour and charity of his 
sentiments, but he did good offices for those who differed from 
him; he was a great benefactor to the poor; he expended his 
revenue in a way becoming a bishop ; he maintained and treated 
Heath, the deprived Bishop of Worcester, for a year and a half, in 
the same splendour as though Fulham House had been his own ; 
and Bonner's mother, who merited nothing on her own account, 
dined always there at the table with him whilst her son was at the 
Tower. The Reformation was greatly promoted by his zeal and 
learning while he lived, as well as by his courage and constancy at 
his death. For of all who served the altar of the Church of 
England, he bore, perhaps, the most useful testimony both in life 
and death to her doctrine." 

11 To this we may add the character given to him by his learned 
biographer, Dr. Glocester Ridley, whose masterly performance we 

a Erasmus Middleton's " Biograph.ia Evangelica," vol. i, pp. 328, 329. 
London, 1779. 
b Ibid, vol. i, p. 403. 



304 

would recommend to our readers for the history, not of Ridley 
only, but of the whole time in which he liyed. Bishop Ridley 
says he was ' meek and gentle to tender consciences, patiently 
bearing with their weakness ; but where he saw the will was in 
fault from vanity, malice, or obstinacy, he set himself with great 
earnestness and steadiness to reduce it to a submission. With 
respect to himself, he was mortified and given to prayer and 
contemplation ; with respect to his family, careful and instructive. 
His mode of life was, as soon as he rose and had dressed himself, 
to continue in private prayer half an hour; then (unless other 
business interrupted him) he retired to his study, where he con- 
tinued till ten of the clock, at which hour he came to common 
prayer with his family, and there daily read a lecture to them, 
beginning at the Acts of the Apostles, and so going regularly 
through St. Paul's Epistles, giving to everyone that could read a 
New Testament, and hiring them to leam by heart some chosen 
chapters,' " &c. a 

Latimer is represented by Micldleton b as " a plain and pious, 
as well as most zealous divine," and as passing a " life strictly 
moral and devout." c " Latimer," he says, " was a true Bishop 
indeed ! for he not only preached the Gospel of Christ faithfully 
and diligently, but he watched over his diocese, and took care, if 
possible, to right all those poor persons who were imposed upon or 
hardly used by their great and wealthy overbearing neighbours." d 
" He was the leader of one of that noble army of martyrs who 
introduced the Reformation in England. He had a happy temper, 
improved by the best principles, and such was his cheerfulness, 
that none of the circumstances of life were seen to discompose 
him. Such was his Christian fortitude that even the severest 
trials could not unman him. He had a collected spirit, and on no 
occasion wanted a resource : he could retire within himself, feel the 
support of a gracious Master, and hold the world at defiance. 
And as danger could not daunt, so neither could ambition allure 
him. Though conversant in courts, and intimate with princes, he 
preserved to the last a rare instance of moderation in his original 

a Middleton's " Biographia Evangelic a," vol. i, pp. 424, 425. London, 1779. 
b Ibid, p. 376. 
c Ibid, p. 377. 
d Ibid, p. 392. 



305 

plainness. In his profession he was indefatigable, and, that he 
might bestow as much time as possible on the active part of it, he 
allowed himself only those hours for his private studies when the 
busy world is at rest ; constantly rising, at all seasons of the year, 
by two in the morning. How conscientious he was in the discharge 
of the public parts of his office, we have many examples. No 
man could persuade more forcibly ; no man could exert, on proper 
occasions, a more commanding severity. The wicked, in whatever 
station, he rebuked with dignity, and awed vice more than a penal 
law. 

" He was not esteemed a very learned man, for he cultivated 
only useful learning ; and that, he thought, lay in a very narrow 
compass. He never engaged in worldly affairs, thinking that a 
clergyman ought to employ himself only in his profession. Thus 
he lived, rather a good, than what the world calls a great man. 
He had not those commanding talents which give superiority in 
business ; but, for honesty and sincerity of heart, for true sim- 
plicity of manners, for apostolic zeal in the cause of religion, and 
for every virtue, both of a public and private kind, that should 
adorn the life of a Christian, he was eminent and exemplary 
beyond most men of his own or of any other time ; well deserving 
that evangelical commendation, with the testimony of a good con- 
science in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly ivisdom, but 
by the grace of God, he had his conversation in the world" a 

Now, let the reader return to the language of Mr. Cobbett as 
applied to the Reformers, and compare his accusations with the 
testimony borne by a sober and honest biographer ; let him select 
which he would prefer to believe ; whose testimony he will most 
value. 

We do not pretend to assert that our Reformers were without 

their faults and weaknesses. It is no argument against reformation 

in religion that such should be the case. They were but fallible 

men, trained in a vicious school. Persecution on the score of 

religion was an accepted dogma. The Papist would not tolerate 

the Reformer; the Reformer would not tolerate the Anabaptists 

or other " heretics." It is a strange anomaly that while Charity 

is acknowledged to be the brightest ornament in the Christian's 

moral code, it not unfrequently happens that there is but little true 

a Erasmus Middleton's " Biographia Evangelica," vol. i, pp. 402, 403. 

x 



306 

charity practised by the greatest professors of Christianity. In- 
tolerance and bigotry are closely allied; and the odium theologicum, 
or theological animosity, has ever been the most bitter of all 
animosities ; it has even become a proverb. The words of Our 
Lord are prophetic — " I came not to send peace, but a sword." 
The same intolerance we see even at the present day, if not put 
in practice in the same manner as formerly. A Papist is, by his 
creed, bound to declare that out of the Roman Church there is no 
salvation ; that is, for the wilfully perverse. Our High Church- 
men will give over the Dissenter to the " uncovenanted mercies of 
God !" They depend on a sacramental system as the channel 
through which grace flows, and then deny to the Dissenters any 
sacramental grace. We are all too prone to set up our own standard 
of orthodoxy as perfect, and exclaim, " God, I thank Thee that I 
am not as other men !" And so it will ever be, until that happy 
time shall come when the " wolf and the lamb shall feed together ;" 
that happy millennium when all strifes shall cease, when our Lord 
Christ shall sanctify all by his presence, when the just shall be 
made perfect, and when there shall be one fold under one Shejmerd ! 
That day will surely come. " He that testifieth of these things 
saith, * Surely, I come quickly.' " 



CHAPTER XL 

FROM THE ACCESSION OP JAMES I. TO WILLIAM III. 

With the death of Elizabeth my task, as to the vindication of the 
Reformation from Mr. Cobbett's virulent attack, is virtually com- 
pleted. He has, however, extended his remarks beyond that period. 
"■ The Reformation," he tells us, "■ was engendered in beastly lust, 
brought forth in hypocrisy and perfidy." He proceeds to say 
that it was " cherished and fed by rivers of innocent blood ;" a and 
adds that, " the Protestant religion being now established by- 
gibbets and racks and ripping knives," b it is his duty to explain 
the " proceedings of the Reformation people after they had estab- 
lished their system." He professes to describe the impoverishing 
and degrading consequences resulting from that Reformation. 

Some writers of, what they are pleased to call, " history" seem 
to be under the impression, that the persons into whose hands 
their productions may fall have never previously read any kind of 
history, nor, indeed, are likely to peruse any other than what 
the said writers have provided for their edification. Mr. Cobbett 
seems to have been (giving him credit for being serious) especially 
under the influence of such an impression when he wrote, what he 
was pleased to term, " A History of the Protestant Reformation." 
If William Cobbett was not himself entirely ignorant of the real 
history of the Protestant Reformation, it is very evident that he 
supposed that the readers of his book must needs be so, or at 
least of a kindred spirit with himself, and prepared to ignore 
everything in the shape of truth which was opposed to the object 
sought to be obtained. Although history, and more particularly 
ecclesiastical history, is not so generally nor so carefully studied 
as it ought to be, one can scarcely imagine any class of readers 
so utterly ignorant of historical facts as not to perceive, by almost 
a glance at Mr.- Cobbett's book, that he had not the least intention 
to put his readers in possession of the truth. Even the truth, 
conveyed in the language and spirit of the work in question, would 

a 319. . b 350. 

x 2 



308 

not be productive of good ; it -would not be " the truth spoken in 
love," but " truth spoken in bitterness, and disgraced by the mode 
of conveyance." 

If truth, clothed in the language of malice and bitterness, disgusts 
rather than convinces, what must be the necessary effect of glaring- 
falsehood clothed in similar language ? What are we forced to 
think of the heart and the head of the author who can deliberately 
attempt to palm upon his readers as true history, what may be 
justly termed a tissue of rabid falsehoods ? 

Yet such is the part which William Cobeett chose to act ! No 
person who has any knowledge of history could dispassionately 
read his book through : he would be almost ashamed to acknow- 
ledge that he had done so. An honest person would never quote 
from it. The scholar must despise it for its flippancy ; the 
gentleman must shun it for its vulgarity ; and the Christian abhor 
it for its impiety and falsehood. What estimate then are we to 
arrive at of those who deliberately reprint and scatter broadcast 
such a book to blacken the character of their fellow Christians, for 
any very questionable temporary advantage they might derive from 
its perusal. 

I have come to one only conclusion after a careful perusal of 
Mr. Cobbett's book, and that is, that he did not believe in the 
truth of what he wrote. If he was otherwise persuaded in his 
mind, he scarcely could have called in aid such vituperative lan- 
guage. Indeed he forcibly brings to my mind a passage I met 
early number of his " Political Register," it is in vol. x. 



in an 



p. 102, and which I have already quoted : — " The retailers of 
falsehood," he says, " stick at nothing ; there is no falsehood too 
bold for them ; they know very well they shall be exposed, and that 
all good men will despise them, but they value not the opinions of 
good men ; they make sure of the wages of their falsehood and 
calumnies, and having these wages they are perfectly dead to all 
feelings of shame and conscience." Again he says : — " There are 
many very worthy people who, judging too much from their own 
hearts, have not been able to work themselves into a belief that other 
men should be so totally void of all sense and moral feeling as coolly 
to put upon paper, in the most serious and solemn manner, and to 
send forth as acknowledged truths, that which they know to be 
utterly false. To such worthy persons it seems to be a libel upon 



309 

human nature to suppose that such black-hearted villany can be in 
existence. They now see that this is really the case." 3 

The spirit of reckless untruthfulness appears almost as promi- 
nently in the 12th and 13th chapters as in those preceding. It 
is difficult to decide between the rival claims of their falsehood and 
malignity. The previous chapters have been principally devoted 
to historical subjects ; the subsequent, to political and social. 

I do not propose to dwell at any length on the part of our 
history included in the above heading ; the events are so amply 
recorded in the numerous histories which have been lately pub- 
lished that the subject has been exhausted ; but, before I proceed 
to make a few observations on the Spirit and Genius of the 
Reformation, with which I propose to close my labors, I must 
make some passing remarks on a few of the events noted by 
Mr. Cobbett. And first let me observe, that he seeks to confound 
the nature of the crimes for which punishments were awarded. 
Hanging and beheading are comparatively quick and easy deaths, 
but burning alive is slow and dreadful. Beheading, hanging and 
disembowelling were confined to the crime of high treason and 
political offences ; burning alive was equally confined to alleged 
heresy or religious offences. Those who were condemned during 
the reigns of Henry VIIL, Elizabeth and James I. were for 
treason, or offences against the person of the monarch or against 
the state ; while those who were burnt at the stake during Mary's 
reign were for religion alone, in conformity with the laws of the 
Roman Church. And this appears to be admitted, for Mr. Cobbett 
says : — " As to those punishments which have served as the ground 
for all the abuse heaped on the memory of this Queen, what were 
they other than punishments inflicted on offenders against the 
religion of the country." b 

We, as Protestants and of the Reformed Church, do not justify 
religious persecutions ; but the difference of punishment should be 
noted, especially as applicable to the mode of execution of eleven 
priests who suffered death under James I., which Mr. Cobbett 
names to denounce as a barbarity peculiar to the Reformers as 
such. He declares it to have been a persecution for conscience sake, 
for religion alone. But it was not so. The priests to whom 

a Cobbett's " Political Register," vol. xxxi, p. 628, 
b 2o7. 



310 

reference is made by Mr. Cobbett did not suffer for their religious 
convictions. 

The story is one of the many sad episodes in the history of 
Popery. 

We have seen that, in the reign of Elizabeth, for eleven years 
Reformers and Romanists lived together in harmony. In 1569 
Pius V. sounded the note of discord by issuing his Bull of Ex- 
communication against Elizabeth, calling on her subjects to rebel 
against her authority. Hence arose all the subsequent complica- 
tions. This bull was afterwards renewed against her successor, 
James I. 

I have already explained all the intrigues fostered and carried 
out by the seminary priests educated abroad and sent into this 
country to sow discord and rebellion amongst us. All these 
priests were declared guilty of treason, and made liable to its 
punishment as traitors. Those accused under James I. were tried, 
and if found guilty, convicted ; but in each case it was offered to 
them to take the oath of allegiance and receive a pardon. None 
were challenged on the score of religion, nor were they asked to 
change one single doctrine they professed. The eleven convicted 
priests referred to actually appealed to the Pope for permission to 
take the oath ; an oath no Romanist would, at the present day r 
hesitate to take. They earnestly entreated the Pope to spare their 
lives by permitting them to take the oath. He mercilessly refused 
such permission, and would rather that they should sacrifice their 
lives than acknowledge the rule of their lawful Sovereign. The 
account of this important episode in the history of the Reformation 
is given by a Romish Priest, Dr. Charles O'Connor, an Irishman. 
a member of one of Ireland's oldest families, a learned and im- 
partial historian, and one of Ireland's great men, but a lover of 
Irish independence. He wrote under the title of " Columbanus." a 
Letter VI- is entitled — '- l Historical Narrative of Eleven Priests 
Confined in Newgate for not Renouncing the Pope's Pretended 
Deposing Power." His words are as follows : — 

" Let us be instructed by history. There is yet extant a petition 

to Pope Paul V., signed by eleven priests, who were under sentence 

of death in Newgate, for refusing James's oath (of allegiance) in 

1612. Two of their companions had already suffered death for 

a- Edition, Buckingham, 1812* 



311 

this offence. They died in resistance to legitimate authority, and hj 
the instigation of a foreign power. 

" In their petitions they entreat of his Holiness, by all that is 
sacred, to attend to their horrible situation, and they beg of him to 
point out to them clearly in what that oath for which they were 
condemned to die is .repugnant to Catholic faith. But yet, in- 
fluenced by the courtly maxims, they declare their belief in his 
unlimited power, and they conclude with a solemn protest of blind 
submission to all his decrees, with an obedience as implicit as if 
Eome were another Mecca, or as if the Vatican were the seraglio 
of a Mahomet. 

" My heart swells with mingled emotions of pity on one side, 
and horror and indignation on the other, when I contemplate the 
dilemma in which those wretched men were thus placed by the 
pride and ambition of their superiors ! Before them was Tyburn ! — 
behind them stood, armed with fulminating thunders and terrors, 
that grim disgrace, in the opinion of their flocks, by which they 
would be overwhelmed as apostates if they opposed the mandates 
of Borne ! On the one side, conscience stared them in the face with 
St. Paul ! — on the other, a vicar apostolic menaced refusal of the 
sacrament, even on the eve of death! This covered them with 
ignominy as apostates ! — that, though frightful to humanity, was 
yet attended with posthumous renown ! 

" Beligion indignantly wraps herself up in her shroud of deepest 
mourning before the idol of ecclesiastical domination, when she 
observes the Boman Court sacrificing to its insatiable ambition 
the lives of so many heroes who were worthy of a better fate I — - 
perverting sacraments which were instituted for the sanctifieation 
of souls into engines of worldly passions, and rendering them 
subservient to the policy of those passions and panders to their 
intrigues ! 

" I can fancy a haughty pontiff, on receipt of this humble 
petition, agitated by contending difficulties. I can fancy him 
seated under a crimson canopy, surrounded by his sycophants, 
debating in a secret consistory, whether those unfortunate men 
shall, or shall not, have permission not to be hanged ! The blood of 
the innocent was now to be shed, or the deposing and absolving 
doctrines (that is, the doctrine which teaches that the Pope has 
power to depose kings from their thrones, and absolve their sub- 



312 

jects from allegiance to them), and all the bnlls and decisions in 
their favour, to receive a deadly wound which no ingenuity could 
parry, no force could avert, and no skill could cure. 

" Barrister Theologians of the Poddle ! blushing beauties of 
Maynooth ! do let us hear what middle course you would have 
devised in such existing circumstances ! In the dedication of one of 
your hodge-podges to Dr. Troy, you declare that whatever opinion 
he dictates, that opinion is yours ! — a fortiori, your opinions would 
have been shaped by those of Pope Paul V., who deliberately 
encouraged the unfortunate priests in Newgate to suffer death, to 
be offered up on the altar of his pride, rather than resign his pre- 
tensions to the deposing power, or retract his decrees ! The 
Catholic religion, calumniated on account of the ambition of his 
court, had travelled barefoot over the Alps and Apennines, from 
the dreary cells of a dark and noxious prison, and stood bare- 
headed and trembling, petitioning for admission at the haughty 
portals of the Vatican ! aye — and admission was refused ! Day 
after day passed, and no answer was received, but that which 
might be collected from the sullen silence of impenetrable ob- 
stinacy and unbending domination ! Both Sixtus and Pius V. 
had addressed their bulls (deposing Queen Elizabeth from the 
throne of England) with these magnificent titles : — ' We who are 
placed on the Supreme Throne of Justice, enjoying supreme dominion 
over all the Kings and Princes and States of the whole earth, not by 
human but by divine authority,' &c. ; and now, how could it be expected 
that, in compliance with the petition of eleven beggarly priests 
of the second order, such magnificent titles should be resigned ? 
No ; said the scarlet Cardinal, perish the idea ! Let not an iota be 
yielded, else we shall lose our worldly dominion, ' Venient Romani 
et tollent nostram gentem et regnurn.' All the pride, and pomp, 
and glory of the Vatican would then be swept away from the face 
of the earth, and what would then be the fate of the thunders of 
scarlet cardinals and purple monsignores ? 

" In consequence of this horrible decision, the following inno- 
cent English (Roman Catholic) clergymen — alas ! how many Irish 
— suffered as victims to the domination of vicars apostolic, and the 
fatal influence of the court of Rome : — 

" 1. Rev. Mr. Cadwallader, refusing to take the oath of alle- 
giance, with a promise of pardon at the place of execution if he 



313 

would comply, refused, and in blind obedience to Rome was executed 
at Leominster, August 27th, 1610. Dodd, vol. ii. 

i; 2. Rev. George Gervase, was executed at Tyburn, April 11th, 
1608, but was promised pardon a second time if he would take the 
oath of allegiance, which he refused. lb. 

" 3. Rev. Fr. Latham, executed at Tyburn, Dec. 5th, 1612, for 
refusing the oath of allegiance. lb. 

11 4. Rev. George Napier, hanged at Oxford, Nov. 9th, 1610. 
The vice-chancellor assuring him of pardon if he would take the 
oath of allegiance, which he refused. lb. p. 373. 

" 5. Rev. Nicholas Atkinson, hanged at York, 1610, for receiving 
orders by the authority of the see of Rome, and for the additional 
circumstance of refusing the oath of allegiance. lb. p. 376. 

" 6. Robert Drury, hanged, London, Feb. 26th, 1607. He was 
one of the thirteen priests who signed the famous protestation of 
allegiance in the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, but refused 
the oath of allegiance when it was offered him at his examination 
and trial, though he seemed inclined to take it before it was pro- 
hibited by the Pope's brief, as several others were, both clergy and 
regulars. lb. p. 377. 

" 7. Rev. Matthew Flather, was executed at York, 1608, but 
was promised his life if he would have submitted to the oath of 
allegiance. lb. 

" 8. Thomas Maxfield, hanged at Tyburn, July 11th, 1616, had 
his pardon offered if he would submit to the oath of allegiance, 
which he refused. lb. p. 378. 

" 9. The Rev. Thomas Garnet had the favour offered to him to 
be pardoned, if he would but take the oath of allegiance, but refusing 
it, he was executed at Tyburn, June 23rd, 1608. lb. p. 413. 
Echard's Hist, of England, p. 385. 

" Let us now consider who, in the eye of unprejudiced reason, 
was the persecutor and executioner of those unfortunate men — 
James or the Pope? The evidence of facts is irresistible. The 
question bears not one moment's examination.' ' 

To this extract from Dr. O'Connor's letter the Archdeacon of 
Meath, the Rev. E. A. Stopford, in a letter to a Romish priest, 
observed : — 

Such is Dr. O'Connor's account of the execution of these 
priests : and he takes the facts from Dodd, a Roman Catholic his- 



314 

torian. It is evident these men were all guilty of treason against 
the state. The Pope had pretended to depose King James from 
his throne : he had sent over these priests to stir up the English 
to rebel against King James. He had educated and ordained them 
at his English seminaries abroad, "which were established for this 
very purpose — to send emissaries of rebellion into England, under 
coyer of religion. It was for this reason alone that receiving orders 
by authority of the Bishop of Rome was then made treason. For 
such a law there could be but one defence, viz., necessity. And 
let the necessity be ever so great, one thing only could justify such 
a law, viz., that any priest condemned under it should be offered 
pardon on the sole condition of taking the oath of allegiance ; for 
this secured that no priest should die for his religion, but only for 
his treason. This defence, we have seen, was abundantly provided. 

No Roman Catholic will now attempt to justify the Pope for 
instigating these priests to rebellion : no one will deny that as 
Roman Catholics they were bound by the Holy Scriptures, and by 
the true Catholic religion, to take the oath of allegiance to their 
king. How then can we deny that they were justly convicted of 
treason ? 

But it is manifest that with all this, the Church of England had 
nothing whatever to do, though Mr. Cobbett would, fain charge 
them to the Protestant Church of England. But how did Dr. 
O'Connor view this ? He knew the ambition, the pride, the cold- 
blooded policy, the sanguinary cruelty of the Pope and the court of 
Rome, and he had the manliness to proclaim it. 

I think it well to quote King James's oath of allegiance, that 
Roman Catholics may be able to judge for themselves, whether 
these priests had any just cause for refusing to take it : whether 
the Pope had any right to insist on their dying rather than take 
it ! This is the oath as it stands in the Act of Parliament, 
3rd Jac. I., c. 4 : — 

" I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and 
declare in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sove- 
reign Lord King James is lawful and rightful king of this realm 
and all other his Majesty's dominions and countries; and that the 
Pope, neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or see 
of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power 
or authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his Majesty's 



315 

kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any foreign prince to invade 
or annoy him or his countries, or to discharge any of his subjects 
of their allegiance and obedience to his Majesty, or to give licence 
or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any 
violence or hurt to his Majesty's royal person, state, or government, 
or to any of his Majesty's subjects within his Majesty's dominions. 

" Also I do swear from my heart, that, notwithstanding any 
declaration or sentence of excommunication or deprivation made 
or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his successors, 
or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him 
or his see, against the said King, his heirs and successors, or any 
absolution of the said subjects from their obedience, I will bear 
faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, 
and him and them will defend, to the utmost of my power, against 
all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made 
against his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or 
colour of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise, and will 
do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Ma- 
jesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspi- 
racies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or them. 

" And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, 
and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and 
position — that princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the 
Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or by any 
other whatsoever. 

" And I do believe, and in my conscience am resolved, that 
neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath power to 
absolve me from this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknow- 
ledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered unto me, 
and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary. 

" And these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and 
swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and accord- 
ing to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same 
words, without any equivocation, or mental evasion, or secret 
reservation whatsoever : And I do make this recognition and 
acknowledgment heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith 
of a Christian. So help me God ! " 

Now will any Roman Catholic tell us that it would be contrary 
to his religion to take such an oath as this to Queen Victoria ? If 



316 

not, how could it be contrary to their religion for those priests to 
take this oath to King James ? That they themselves did not feel 
it to be contrary to their religion is clear from the passage, which 
Dr. O'Connor quotes above, from the petition of those priests to 
the Pope, in which they " entreat of him, by all that is sacred, to 
show them clearly in what that oath for which they were condemned 
to die was repugnant to the Catholic faith." It is plain that they 
could sec nothing of this kind themselves. Why, then, did they 
die rather than take this oath ? It was because Pope Paul V. had 
addressed a Brief to the English Roman Catholics in these words : 
— " In like manner also, you cannot, without the heaviest offence 
against the Divine Honour, oblige yourselves by an oath, which 
likewise with great grief of our heart we have heard has been 
proposed to you to be taken, of the tenor written below." (Here 
the oath of allegiance which I have given above is referred to in 
the Brief, after which the Brief goes on) — " Which things since they 
are so, it ought to be clear to you from the words themselves that 
an oath of this kind cannot be taken consistently with the Catholic 
faith and the salvation of your souls, since it contains many things 
which evidently are contrary to faith and salvation ! '" 

It was in answer to this Brief that those eleven unfortunate 
priests entreated the Pope to show them clearly what things in that 
oath were " contrary to Catholic faith." This, as we have seen, the 
Pope would not condescend to answer ; and so those wretched men 
died on the gallows rather than venture to think for themselves 
what things were contrary to their own religion ! 

All sensible Roman Catholics are now agreed that the things 
which the Pope then declared to be " contrary to the Catholic 
faith," indeed were not contrary to it at all, but rather most agree- 
able to it. a 

Mr. Cobbett, as an historian jealous of "sacred truth," was 
bound to state all this, but the facts did not suit the cause 
which he was hired to advocate. The episode fully illustrates as 
well the spirit of Popery, as that of the arbitrary ecclesiastical rule 
under which the deluded victims of that system suffered in this 
country. 

a The above remarks are borrowed, with a slight adaptation, from the 
Venerable Archdeacon Stopford's pamphlet, entitled " A Letter to the Rev. 
Dr. Marshall," &c. Warrington, 1852. 



317 

The reign of James I. becomes important in this history on 
account of the conspiracy of the ever memorable 5th of November, 
1G06. " This reign," Cobbett says, "would, as far as my purposes 
extend, be a complete blank, were it not for that ' Gunpowder 
Plot,' which alone has caused this Stuart to be remembered, and 
of which, seeing that it has been, and is yet, made a source of 
great and general delusion, I shall take much more notice than it 
would otherwise be entitled to." a The nature of this conspiracy, 
to destroy at one blow, the King, the Royal Family, the Lords, 
and the Commons, shows the inveteracy and energy of hostile 
feeling cherished by many of the most respectable Romanists of 
the age. I am far from wishing, by dwelling upon facts of this 
description, to inflame the passions of Protestants against their 
Roman Catholic fellow subjects of the present day ; but when we- 
are told that the progress of the Reformation is to be traced in 
cruelty, and for proof of this are referred to the penalties of Eliza- 
beth and James, we are constrained to assert that the Romanism 
of England has, in several striking instances, been vindictive, 
resentful, and greedy of blood, and that, therefore, penal enact- 
ments became necessary, though the administration of them may 
have been chargeable with excessive severity. Mr. Cobbett's 
account of Catesby's plot contains admissions of its vengeful 
nature and Popish character. But enumerating the provocations 
to this measure which Romanists possessed, and comparing it with 
the Cato Street conspiracy, of then recent date, he attempts to- 
exempt the system of Popery from the blame belonging to it. 
The comparison mentioned is absurd in itself; and the manner in 
which it is reasoned on is a sufficient exposure of its absurdity. 
The Plot is no proof of the sanguinary principles of Popery, be- 
cause, says Mr. Cobbett, " supposing the conspirators to have had 
no provocation, those of Cato Street were not Catholics at any rate, 
nor were those Catholics who qualified Charles I. for a post in the 
Calendar, &c." b The amount of this reasoning effort is, that since 
the Cato Street conspiracy and the execution of Charles were not 
the effect of Romish principles, the Gunpowder Plot is no proof of 
the sanguinary nature of those principles. But if the parties were 
of different professions, nothing is gained to one by a comparison 
with the other. The Cato Street conspirators ivere sanguinary 
* 362. b 354. 



men ; Catesby and his companions were the same ; the principles 
belonging to the individuals of both parties were sanguinary. But 
no one believed that such principles belonged to all the advocates 
of parliamentary reform, while there was too much reason to fear 
that the dreadful determination of Catesby was possessed in 
common with multitudes of his party. In fact, Mr. Cobbett's 
principal artifice is to raise the indignation of his readers against 
something which he imputes to his opponents, and to take the 
opportunity which the burst of this honest indignation affords to 
evade the discussion of what is equally bad, or infinitely worse, on 
his own side. He never answers an accusation ; but, forgetting the 
situation in which he stands, turns accuser himself. He does not 
defend, but recriminates ; he lets the charge of guilt stand, but 
puts in a plea for the mitigation of punishment by contrasts unfairly 
formed. His is not the bold appeal of the innocent, but the 
artifice of the convicted culprit. I have already had occasion to 
notice his indifference to guilt, however enormous, in the manner 
in which he treats the persecutions under Mary and the Mas- 
sacre of St. Bartholomew. He always seems perfectly easy under 
the most disgraceful imputations. He reminds us of the veteran 
villain who, on the discovery of his crimes, is surprised at the 
outcry which men of the least morality raise against his conduct. 
While others sicken and revolt at his actions, he has no part in 
their moral perceptions ; conviction is without penitence ; though 
guilty of the charge, he is at a loss to comprehend its disgrace; 
and in the award of justice complains of his punishment as severe. 
Thus Mr. Cobbett never looks at the flagrancy of the means to the 
use of which Papists have suffered themselves to be impelled, but 
dwells on the evils of which they complained. His resentment 
appears to have confounded all moral distinctions, and he utterly 
forgets that deeds of cruelty can never be justified. Resistance to 
oppression may be a virtue, but indifference to results, forgotten in 
the madness of revenge, is a crime. Of the Gunpowder Plot, we 
are told, " men will judge differently, according to the difference in 
their notions about passive obedience and non-resistance." But, 
we maintain, no difference of opinion on political expedience can 
excuse the ferocity of this plot. a 

The reign of Charles I., the interregnum of Cromwell, and the 
a These remarks I have adapted from Oxlad's " Protestant Vindicator." 



319 

reign of James II. are briefly and flippantly dismissed. They are 
referred to in a manner which would render a complete history 
of the times necessary as a reply. Cromwell, of course, gives an 
opportunity for invectives against puritanical barbarity and the 
alleged excesses of his " myrmidons." But Mr. Cobbett is equally 
inaccurate about the affairs of Cromwell's time as he is about 
others ; and yet it is strange that he should find fault with any 
excesses committed by people professing to act on the very same 
principles which he himself, in the latter portion of his life, 
professed to advocate. 

Mr. Cobbett's own book is a complete refutation of itself. In 
what country, except in Protestant England, could such a pub- 
lication have been put forth, and the writer escape imprisonment 
■at least? In what "Catholic" country, to adopt Mr. Cobbett's 
language, could a book have been published impugning Romish 
doings and the writer escape the inquisition, with its rack and 
dungeons ? By his violent language he actually proves his con- 
fidence in Protestant liberty and Protestant forbearance. 

With respect to the reign of James II., Mr. Cobbett, taking 
the Popish Bishop Milner for his guide, exaggerates the un- 
truthful assertions even of that unscrupulous writer. James was 
confessedly a Papist, and would not have succeeded to the crown 
had not the Lords thrown out a bill, which had passed the 
Commons, to prevent a Popish succession. After an interval of 
twenty-seven years the rites and ceremonies of the Romish religion 
were performed at Westminster with regal splendour, and Popish 
priests were permitted to hold preferments in the Church of 
England. The wisdom of the House of Commons was abundantly 
shown by the conduct of James. He saw that so long as the 
Church of England existed in its integrity, Popery could not be 
introduced into England as the dominant religion. He, therefore, 
endeavoured to weaken, and, finally, to overthrow the Established 
Church ; and, therefore, tried to enlist Nonconformists and Dis- 
senters of all classes on his side, by proclaiming the abolition of 
tests; well knowing that, if the Established Church was removed 
out of the way, the various denominations of Dissenters could 
make no effectual stand against the Church of Rome. 

Mr. Cobbett, still following the Papist Dr. Milner, claims for 
James the merit that, when Duke of York, he had been chief 



320 

mover in tlie repeal of the Act De Hceretico Comburendo. This 
Act, itself the offspring of Romish intolerance, stood in the way of 
Romish heretics, and, therefore, James, prompted by Jesuitical 
foresight, gladly used his influence to get it repealed ; not with a 
view to religious tolerance, but to make way for a Church whicli 
knows not the meaning of the words, and which has from time to 
time disavowed them, as contrary to the very spirit of that Church 
and of her canons. " Sire," said the Belgian Bishops to their 
Sovereign in 1815, "the existence and privileges of the Catholic 
Church in this part of your kingdom are incompatible with an 
article of the plan of the new constitution, by which equal favours 
and protection are promised to all religions. We do not hesitate 
to declare to your Majesty, that the canonical laws, which are 
sanctioned by the ancient institutions of the country, are incon- 
sistent with the projected constitution, which would give in 
Belgium equal favours and protection to all religions.'" a The 
Bishops spoke truly, and such toleration would be inconsistent 
with the canonical laws of Rome in every place where such 
canonical laws are in existence or are sanctioned. The same 
sentiment has been very lately avowed by the Romish journals at 
the present day. Mr, Cobbett has found it convenient to sink all 
mention of James's persecutions : the burning alive of the good 
and charitable Elizabeth Gaunt only shows that James II. was 
essentially a persecutor. And while Mr. Cobbett is lavish in his 
invectives against Henry VIII. for his alleged immoralities, and even 
against Elizabeth, the latter (at least) without one attempt at proof 
or justification of his charge, he overlooks all James II.'s illicit 
attachments and amours, carried on even during the life of his own 
wife. His Queen upbraided him for his inconsistency in that he 
affected to be a zealous Romanist, but a libertine : — " You are 
ready," she said, " to put your kingdom to hazard for the sake of 
your soul ; and yet you are throwing away your soul for the sake of 
that creature," — his kept mistress. Bad as Henry VIII. is repre- 
sented to be, not one act during his married life can be pointed at 
as immoral. Henry, at least, was free of this vice. And yet 
Cobbett condemns the one for a vice he was not guilty of, and 
allows the other to pass whose married life was a disgrace and a 
public scandal ! Such is the force of prejudice ! 
a "Annual Register" for 1815, p. 399. 



321 

As to James's intention to tolerate other religions besides that 
of Rome, we have abundant evidence in his letter to the Privy- 
Council of Scotland, in which the poor " field coventiclers" were 
directed to be " rooted out." As to his reception of the Huguenots, 
who were flying from persecution in France, " it soon," observes 
Macaulay, " became clear that all this compassion was simulated 
merely for the purpose of cajoling his Parliament, that he regarded 
the refugees with mortal hatred, and regretted nothing so much 
as his own inability to do what Louis had done." a 

It suited Mr. Cobbett's purpose to avoid all allusion to the 
cruelties committed by James II. through his willing tool and asso- 
ciate Judge Jefferies, his proceedings for the re-introduction of 
Popery and the overthrow of the National Protestant Faith, and 
his other misdoings. 

James, in Scotland, pursued a policy and a system of perse- 
cution similar to that of his patron, Louis of France, preceding 
and after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and did all in his 
power to bring about a state of things which would have enabled 
him to do the same in England. " James," says Professor Creasy, 
" was the hireling of Louis, and was animated by the same feelings, 
He strove to gain a simultaneons triumph over Church and State 
in England, and to lay the national faith beneath the Pope's feet, 
while he cast down the national liberties beneath his own." b As 
he treated the Provost and Fellows of the University of Dublin, 
despoiling them of all their property, whether public or private, 
so also he commenced an attack upon the University of Oxford, 
because the Fellows of Magdalen College refused to violate their 
oaths by receiving a Popish president ! On Cambridge, too, because 
the Vice- Chancellor refused to break his oath by admitting a 
Pope's monk to the degree of m.a. For the purpose of laying- 
England at the feet of Rome, James maintained a disciplined army 
of 20,000 men, in a state of profound peace, which he sought to 
have under the command of Popish officers. For this purpose, 
too, he imprisoned, on the pretence oj libel, seven bishops for peti- 
tioning not to be compelled to read an illegal proclamation ! At 
his hand did the cruel, profane and sottish Judge Jefferies receive 
the most signal honors, whilst James affected to encourage tolcra- 

* Macaulay's " History of England," vol. ii, p. 18. 
b " Rise and Progress of the Constitution," p. 307. London, 1848. 

Y 



322 

tion ! Fortunately, he was as stupid as he was insincere, and the 
Nonconformists, whom he sought to make his dupes, discovered 
what dependence was to be placed on the professions of such a 
man. When the hour of trial came, James meanly deserted his 
post, and left the kingdom without a king or parliament ! In this 
state of things William fortunately arrived, and accepted the crown 
at the hands of the only competent authority which James had 
left to bestow it. James was fond enough of parliament when 
they were subservient to his wishes, but cared neither for parlia- 
ment nor laws when they did not further his views. James's 
tolerant measures culminated in Dublin in 1687, when a proclama- 
tion was issued " forbidding more than five Protestants to meet 
together on pain of death," which was intended to extend to all 
religious assemblies throughout the whole kingdom. 8 Then, too, 
he found a parliament sufficiently subservient to his purpose. The 
Act of Settlement was repealed and an atrocious Act of Attainder 
passed. . " In this Act there were attainted no fewer than two arch- 
bishops, one duke, two viscountesses, seven bishops, eighteen 
barons, thirty-three baronets, fifty-one knights, eighty-three clergy- 
men, two thousand and eighty-two esquires and gentlemen ; and 
all of them [unheard] declared and adjudged tray tors, convicted 
and attainted of high treason and adjudged to suffer the pains of 
death and forfeiture.'''' b So much for the tolerant James II. 

He died a confirmed Papist. He received at the hands of a 
priest extreme unction, and his remains were deposited in the 
chapel of the English Benedictines in Paris." The very fact that 
James was a Papist is sufficient justification to bring him under 
Mr. Cobbett's protection. 

True it is, that Mr. Cobbett enumerates what he calls the twelve 
charges brought against James II., and comments upon every 
charge — in language which he alone would employ : but the 
arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional acts of James II., stated in 
the Petition and Bill of Eights, prove at once the unworthiness of 
the King and the justice of the nation. 

Possibly, however, those of my readers who have not read 

B See Dr. King, cited in " The Complete History of England, " vol. iii, 
pp. 474, 475. Edition, 1719. 
h Ibid, p. 475. 
* See Macaulay's " History," vol. v, pp. 294. 295. London, 1861, 



323 

Mr. Cobbett's book may wish to have some few of his choice 
comments on these charges : — 

- " Did not Betsy and her successor James I. dispense with or 
suspend laws when they took a composition from recusants ? " 
"* * * " He [James II.] prosecuted them [the seven bishops] as 
libellers." * * * He committed them " because they refused to 
give bail." * * * " Bless us ! was this \i. e., the Commission 
for Ecclesiastical Causes] worse than good Betsy's real inquisition 
under the same name?" * * * " That he [James] levied 
money," &c. " Did the Parliament grant Betsy the right to 
raise money by the sale of monopolies ?." &c. * * * " That he 
[James] kept a standing army in time of peace without consent 
of Parliament. Think of the vast difference between the prick 
of a bayonet coming without consent of Parliament and that of 
one coming with such consent." * * * " That he [James] 
violated the freedom of election of members to serve in Parlia- 
ment. Oh, monstrous ! Come up shades of sainted Perceval and 
Castlereagh — come, voters of Sarum and Gatton," &c. * * * 
1 That he [James] caused juries to be composed of partial, corrupt 
and unqualified persons." * * * " But, not to mention 
that Protestant Betsy dispensed with juries altogether when she 
pleased, and tried and punished even vagabonds and rioters by 
martial law," &c. 

This is the method Mr. Cobbett adopts to convince his readers ! 

It is no part of my plan to enter into details of political revolu- 
tions, I am therefore relieved of the necessity of following Mr. 
Cobbett through all his distortions of well known historical facts. 
He evades the real points in issue while indulging in his pro- 
pensity for low abuse. His artifice is to detail certain alleged 
grievances under Protestant princes, and from these he concludes, 
that " this was a revolution entirely Protestant, and that it was an 
event directly proceeding from the Reformation." He does not, 
however, advance one single argument or fact to show that the 
religious reformation, the only reformation we have to deal with, is 
to be condemned on that account. It is true he heaps together 
allegations and abuse which can only tend to raise the evil passions 
of the ignorant and credulous Romanist, and indignation in the 
hearts of all honest right-minded and thinking men. I know no 
book- which tends more to engender bitter feelings between Pro- 

y 2 



324 

testants and Romanists ; and the idea of such a work could have 
only emanated from the mind of a mischievous Jesuit, whose mis- 
sion in this world appears to be to set one race of Christians 
against another, if his party can only thereby effect a passing 
triumph. 

But his attacks on Lord William Russell and Algernon 
Sidney, in favour of whom one would have supposed all his sym- 
pathies would have been enlisted, are unaccountable ; but, as has 
been justly remarked, with Mr. Cobbett, in calumniating the 
Reformation, everything great and good is to be destroyed, and 
nothing shows the enormity of the cause he has undertaken more 
than the opposition he maintains to patriots and genuine patriotism 
in any place ; I do not allude to the so-called patriotism of the 
democrat — the factious disturber of the country's laws, such pro- 
bably would meet Mr. Cobbett's admiration. " Alas ! " he ex- 
claims, "how have we been deluded upon this subject! I used 
to look upon these [Lord William Russell and Algernon Sidney] 
as two murdered men. A compulsion to look into realities, and 
to discard romance, has taught me the contrary. So much for the 
1 good old cause ' for which Hampden died in the field, and Sidney 
on the scaffold ! What credulous creatures we have been, and 
who more so than myself." 3 Not to speak of the merits of these 
individuals as compelling our admiration, we cannot speak of the 
injustice, illegality and barbarity of their treatment in terms 
corresponding to the intensity of feelings which we ought to 
cherish. Now to attempt a defence of the men, whose crime with 
posterity can be nothing more than an ardent attachment to 
freedom, and whose execution was tyrannical, would imply a 
degradation of national feeling which we do not believe exists. 
" When their memory shall cease to be an object of respect and 
veneration, it requires no spirit of prophecy to foretell that English 
liberty will be fast approaching to its final consummation." 5 More 
and Fisher, with Cobbett, were martyrs ; Russell and Sidney, 
traitors ! 

I have now arrived at the chapter of Mr. Cobbett's work which 

a 382, 385. 

b Fox, " History of Jame3 II.," p. 50. See " Protestant Vindicator," p. 187. 
London, 1826. 



325 

professes to treat of William III. and the Revolution of 1688. 
The " Table of Contents " has these words : " Glorious Revolution, 
or Reformation the Third — The Dutch King and his Delivering 
Army ; " — so that the reader is at once apprised that he need not 
anticipate any impartial statement of actual facts or honest sum- 
mary of consequences. Mr. Cobbett begins by speaking of " a 
Dutchman invited over with an army to settle the kingdom; " a — 
then, in his own peculiar style, he tells his story of the convention, 
and, as we have seen, reviews the national charges against King 
James II. favourably to that monarch. 

Step by step James II. developed his plan of re-introducing 
Popery and arbitrary power into England. At length, forbear- 
ance on the part of the nation became criminal, and self-defence 
demanded a remedy ; accordingly, as a matter of necessity, Wil- 
liam III., then Prince of Orange, and Mary his wife, were called 
to our throne. What could be a more just or proper proceeding ? 
William was lineally descended from James I., and Mary was the 
eldest daughter of James II., consequently the crown was continued 
in the royal family, and what was the result ? William III. and 
Mary ("the Dutchman and his wife," as Mr. Cobbett elegantly 
calls them,) restored to this country the Protestant religion, and, as 
a necessary consequence, civil and religious liberty. 

In fact the religious Reformation had preceded and was com- 
pleted before the arrival of King William III., so that it is not 
strictly accurate to call King William a Reformer, he was rather 
our Deliverer — "to deliver this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary 
power, and to prevent the Protestant religion being subverted," 
to use the language of the Act of Parliament. And Mr. Cobbett 
himself seems to feel this difficulty; accordingly, he says, "and 
seeing that this was immediately followed by a perpetual exclusion 
of Catholics from the throne, it is clear that this was a revolution 
entirely Protestant and that it was an event directly proceeding from 
the ' Reformation.' This being the case, I should now proceed to 
take a view of the consequences, and particularly of the costs of this 
•grand change which was Reformation the third." b After dealing 
with Lord William Russell and Algernon Sidney — both of whom, 
■as we have seen, he considers as deserving their fate — he proceeds 
to admit that Charles II. " was at one time in pecuniary treaty 
■ 375. » 3S1. 



326 

with the King of France for the purpose of re-establishing the- 
Catholic Church in England," a which conduct he thus defends : — 
" Well, had he not as much right to do this as Edward VI. had 
to bring oyer German troops to root out that ancient Church 
which had been established for 900 years, and which was guaranteed 
to the people by Magna Charta ?" Mr. Cobbett next gives credit 
to James II. for the Habeas Corpus Act, and alleges its suspension 
in the reign of William : — " The moment the glorious revolution, or 
Reformation the third, came, the Dutch ' deliverer ' was, by the Pro- 
testant ' Convention,' whose grand business it was to get rid of 
' arbitrary power ' — the moment that this ' glorious ' affair had taken 
place, that moment was the Dutch ' deliverer'' authorized to put in 
prison, and to keep there, any Englishman that he or Iris ministers 
might suspect." b The italics and inverted commas in this passage 
are Mr. Cobbett's. He next deals with our American plantations. 
11 There was another great thing, too, done in the reign of these 
Popish Kings; namely, the settling of the Provinces (now States) 
of America." * * * " All these fine colonies were made by this 
PopisJily inclined King and by his really Popish brother." c Then, 
after alluding to the disruption of the American colonies from the 
mother country, he says d : — " We have seen that Reformation the 
third, commonly called the ' glorious revolution' grew directly out 
of Reformation the second ; and we are now to see Reformation 
the fourth, commonly called ' the American Revolution,' grow 
directly out of Reformation the third," and then he proceeds to 
answer, in his usual style, the question; M But how did the Ame- 
rican revolution grow out of the Dutch deliverer's, or ' glorious,' 
revolution ? " 

I cannot suppose that any of my readers will require a minute 
or indeed any formal refutation or explanation of such farrago as 
this. The reign of William of Orange has been too thoroughly 
exhausted by our historian Macaulay, to render it necessary to vin- 
dicate his character and acts from the aspersions of a Cobbett. The 
only comment I need make as to the relative merits of the two histories 
is, that the Pope has placed Macaulay's history among the list of 
prohibited books, while he allows Cobbett's to run riot and at 
large ! I shall better employ my time and space by briefly in- 
quiring what William III. really did for the benefit of England, 
a 386. b 388. c 389, 390. d 392. 



327 

First : He rescued this country from arbitrary regal power and 
from priestly domination and tyranny. Secondly : He established 
civil and religious liberty on a firm basis. Thirdly : He preserved 
England from becoming the vassal of France. Fourthly : He was 
leader of that noble confederation which saved the nations of the 
Continent from the overwhelming ambition of France, — securing 
to each the enjoyment of its own religion and laws, and preserving- 
each from the imposition of the persecuting religion and tyrannical 
rule of the French monarch. In short, that the whole Continent 
of Europe and England and her possessions are not now Fbance, 
as a universal empire, is due to the wisdom, sagacity, courage, and 
assiduity of that great man whom Mr. Cobbett delights to dis- 
honour. And if so, was not this a " glorious Revolution V 
Many other and most important benefits did England derive from 
King William. Let Mr. Cobbett's admirers disprove any one of 
these propositions ; and until they can do so, they must permit us 
to believe, with Bishop Burnet, that King William III. " appeared 
to be a person raised up by God to resist the power of France, and 
the progress of tyranny and persecution ;" a and that " he ought to be 
reckoned amongst the greatest princes that our history, or indeed 
any other, can afford." 5 And to agree with another writer quoted 
by Rapin : c — " Those who will reflect and consider must acknow- 
ledge, that a more real friend to human beings never appeared in 
this part of the earth. To him we owe the asserting and securing 
our most important immunities and privileges. To him the intel- 
lectual world is indebted for the full freedom of debating all 
subjects, and of avowing and defending their sentiments." Thanks 
to King William, even Mr. Cobbett was at liberty to express his 
opinions, or rather to utter and publish his misrepresentations and 
falsehoods, without impediment or penalty. 

William III. was a great man, morally and politically ; his wars 
were unavoidable and s elf- defensive ; his domestic administration 
was just, and (considering the perpetual conspiracies against his 
life) merciful ; and the constitution by him transmitted to posterity 
continued, until the year 1829, the glory of England and the 
admiration of the Continent ; and it will require something better 

a Quoted by Eapin, vol. xvii, p. 264. London, 1758. 
b Ibid, p. 264. 
c Ibid, p. 269. 



328 

than Mr. Cobbett's so-called History of the Reformation to nullify 
or disprove the character given of him by his contemporaries, as 
man, christian, soldier, and prince. 

While we congratulate ourselves that the character of our 
Protestant King has been completely cleared by Mr. Macaulay, in 
his History of England, of the stigma which had improperly been 
attached to his name on account of the Glencoe massacre (perse- 
cutions and cruelty being most foreign to his disposition), we have, 
as Protestants, to be proud of the fact that it was through the 
influence of William III., constantly and strenuously exerted, that 
"in the spring of 1691 the Waldensian shepherds, long and 
cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised by glad 
tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy returned to their 
homes. Children who had been taken from their parents to be 
educated by priests, were sent back. Congregations which had 
hitherto met only by stealth, and with extreme peril, now wor- 
shipped God without molestation in the face of day. These simple 
mountaineers probably never knew that their fate had been the 
subject of discussion at the Hague, and that they owed the happi- 
ness of their firesides, and the security of their humble temples 
to the ascendancy which William exercised over the Duke of 
Savoy." a And yet Mr. Cobbett has not one kind or good word 
for William of Orange ! 

a Macaiilay's " History of England," c. xvii, p. 12, vol. iv. London, 1855. 






CHAPTER XIL 

CONCLUSION. 

In conclusion, Mr. Cobbett desires us to believe that all the evils 
which have come on this country, indeed, on Europe generally, 
•originated with the Reformation. Loans, funds, banks, bankers, 
bank notes, national debt, poor laws, poverty are all with him the 
result of the " Protestant Reformation." How these things are con- 
nected, he does not show. Indeed, he asserts that England was, 
before the Reformation, happier, richer, more flourishing than now ! 
He advances even so far as to say that the population was greater. 
The Reformation has u degenerated and impoverished the main body 
of the people of England and Ireland, and was brought about by the 
very worst people that ever breathed ! " " The baneful effects of the 
Reformation," he adds, " were felt throughout the Continent, even to 
the French Revolution : " which, by the way, arose from the tyranny 
and oppression exercised, not by Protestants, but Popish statesmen, 
and from the vices of the priests and nobles, which, under a Popish 
government, had overflowed the land. But all these statements 
are advanced without any attempt at proof or connection. Mr. 
Cobbett may affect in his latter days a great regard for Popery, 
when it was made worth his while ; but, surely, it must be admitted 
that every advance in science, civilization, and civil and religious 
liberty has been made in direct opposition to the spirit and genius 
of Romanism. Every step in science since the days of Galileo* 

a The Inquisition appointed to examine into the case of Galileo, by desire of 
the Pope, declared that : " The two propositions — of the stability of the sun, 
.and the motion of the earth —were qualified by the theological qualifications, 
as follows : — 1. The proposition that the sun is in the centre of the world, 
.and immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally 
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures ; 2. The 
proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immovable, 
and that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is also absurd, philoso- 
phically false, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith." 
See Kev. Joseph Mendham's " Index of Prohibited Books, by command of 
Pope Gregory XVI. in 1835." London, 1840. 

" Moreover, if any Roman Catholic should feel inclined to believe the 
•doctrine of Copernicus as to the motion of the earth, he ought to remember 
dutifully, that every passage in which it was maintained by that writer, in, 
his book < De Revolutionibus Orbium Ccelestium,' was doomed to expurga- 



330 

has been taken by casting aside the fetters of Popery. In litera- 
ture Rome has been, and still is, as intolerant as she is in religion — 
witness the Expurgatory and Prohibitory Indices ! a 

As to civilization and commerce, it would be an insult to the 
reader to suppose him, for an instant, ignorant that they owe their 
commencement and subsequent progress to the setting aside of the 
restraints imposed by Popery, which has ever sought to confine 
property and influence to individual and certain societies. "Where, 
but for the Statutes of Mortmain, would have been the commercial 
prosperity of England ? As to Cobbett's allegation that poverty, 
misery, and debasement, moral and physical, are chargeable to the- 
reformation in religion which spread throughout Europe, let u& 
hear what the historian Macaulay says on this subject : — 

u From the time the barbarians overran the Western Empire 
to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the Church of 
Rome had been generally favourable to science, to civilization, and 
to good government. But during the last three centuries, to stunt 
the growth of the human mind has been her chief object. Through- 
out Christendom, whatever advance has been made in knowledge, 
in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in 

tion by the Congregation of the Index in 1620. In the year 1634, Galileo 
Galilei's ' Dialogo ' was condemned ; he himself was overpowered by the 
Inquisition at Rome ; and his work remained under absolute censure from 
1634 till 1835, when it was silently withdrawn from reprobation. It may be 
added, that, from the year 1616 till 1758, every prohibitory catalogue, for 
which the Popes were responsible, contained a sentence by which all books 
teaching that the earth moved and the sun stood still, '• Libri omnes 
docentes mobilitatem terras et immobilitatem solis,' were proscribed." 

The theory of the earth moving round the sun was condemned, as I have- 
shown above, as an heretical theory, contrary to the faith of the Roman 
Church. Alas ! for Infallibility ! 

a I add here a list of some books which are interdicted by the Roman 
Indices, as showing how averse even at the present day the Roman Church 
is to the general acquirement of knowledge. I borrow the following from 
the Rev. Dr. Gibbing's " Statement of the Case of Thaddgeus O'Farrihy, 
Priest," &c, p. 23. Dublin, 1868 :— " The date of the Decree by which the 
author, or the work named, was condemned is placed within a parenthesis. 
Bacon ' De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum' (1669). Bp. Berkeley's 
' Minute Philosopher ' (1745). Brucker's ' Historia Critica Philosophise ' 
(1755 and 1757). Darwin's 'Zoonomia' (1817). Gibbon's 'Decline and 
Fall of the Roman Empire' (1783). Grabe's « Bpicilegium' (1714). Works 
byHallam (1833). Hume's ' History of England' (1827). Locke's ' Essay 



331 

spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to her 
power. The loveliest and most fertile provinces of Europe have, 
under her rule, been sunk in poverty, in political servitude, and in 
intellectual torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for 
sterility and barbarism, have been turned by skill and industry 
into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmen, 
philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland 
naturally are, and what, four hundred years ago, they actually were, 
shall now compare the country round Rome with the country round 
Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to the tendency 
of Papal domination. The descent of Spain, once the first among 
monarchies, to the lowest depths of degradation, the elevation of 
Holland, in spite of many natural disadvantages, to a position such 
as no commonwealth so small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. 
Whoever passes — in Germany, from a Roman Catholic to a Protes- 
tant principality — in Switzerland, from a Roman Catholic to a 
Protestant canton — in Ireland, from a Roman Catholic to a Pro- 
testant county, finds that he has passed from a lower to a higher 
grade of civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic the same 
law prevails. The Protestants of the United States have left far 
behind them the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. 
The Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the 
whole continent round them is in a ferment with Protestant activity 
and enterprise. The French have doubtless shown an energy and 
an intelligence which, even when misdirected, have justly entitled 
them to be called a great people. But this apparent exception, 

concerning Human Understanding' (1731), Messingham's ' Florilegium 
Insulse Sanctorum' (1634). Milton's 'Paradise Lost' (1732). Bp. Pearson's 
'Exposition of the Creed' (1709). Poole's 'Synopsis Criticorum' (1693). 
Robertson's 'Charles the Fifth' (1777). Eoscoe's 'Life of Pope Leo X.' 
(1825). Works by Archbp. Ussher (1709). Bishop Walton's Polyglott Bible 
(1663). And, in 1853, Macaulay's ' History of England.' Without any 
question no trifling loss would be sustained, if it were considered necessary 
to comply with the inductions which relate to the disuse of writings by 
Beverege, Bingham, Burnet, Cave, Du Pin, Erasmus, Natalis Alexander, 
Mosheim, Joannes Albertus Fabricius, Fenelon, Guicciardini, Launoi, 
Pascal, Raynaud, Sismondi, Spanheim, Gerard John, and Isaac Vossius. 

Even the editors of Newton's works, in the edition known as "The 
Jesuit's Newton," were obliged to evade the stringency of Popish edicts by 
the excuse that they were obliged to assume various heretical calculations 
in order to elucidate the work upon which they were engaged. 



332 

when examined, will be found to confirm the rule, for in no country 
that is called Roman Catholic has the Roman Catholic Church, 
during several generations, possessed so little authority as in 
France." a 

By a decree of the Inquisition, dated the 24th April, 1853, 
Macaulay's History is placed in the Index of Prohibited Books ! 
What would have Mr. Cobbett said, if his work now under review 
had been prohibited ? And this leads me to add a few remarks on 
the liberty of the press and liberty of conscience. 

Mr. Cobbett professed to be an advocate of civil and religious 
liberty, and above all he proclaimed the liberty of the press. 
Of all countries in Europe the greatest freedom is enjoyed in 
England. Is that a consequence of the Reformation which is to 
be deplored? But for the Reformation what would have been 
our position ? 

So recently as 1833 the late Pope Gregory XVI. expressed his 
detestation of a free press, and which declaration was published in 
England in the pages of " The Laity's Directory to the [Roman 
Catholic] Church Service." b " From this polluted fountain of 
4 indifference ' flows that absurd and erroneous doctrine — or rather 
raving — in favour and in defence of ' liberty of conscience ;' for which 
most pestilential error the course is opened by that entire and wild 
liberty of opinion which is everywhere attempting the overthrow 
•of religious and civil institutions, and which the unblushing im- 
pudence of some has held forth as an advantage to religion. * * * 
For hence arise those revolutions in the minds of men ; hence this 
aggravated corruption of youth ; hence this contempt among the 
people of sacred things, and of the most holy institutions and 
laws; hence, in one word, that pest of all others most to be 
dreaded in a state — unbridled liberty of opinion, licentiousness of 
speech, and a lust of novelty, which, according to the experience 
of all ages, portend the downfall of the most powerful and flourish- 
ing empires. Hither tends that worst and never-sufficiently-to- 
be-cxecrated and detested liberty of the press, for the diffusion of all 
manner of writings, which some so loudly contend for and so 
actively promote." 

a Macaulay's, " History of England," vol. i, chap, i, p. 47, 6th edition. 
London, 1850. 
h Messrs. Keating and Brown. London, 1833. 



333 

This sentiment stands in strange contrast with the following, 
which I extract from the 26th volume of Mr. Cobbett's "Political 
Register," p. 268 : — "The necessity of the liberty of the press to 
the happiness of mankind and the well-being of an enlightened 
state, no person can doubt." 

The " Rambler," a Romish monthly periodical, thus declared its 
sentiments with reference to civil and religious liberty and liberty 
of conscience, in the number for June, 1849 : — 

" For our own selves, we are prepared to maintain that it is no 
more morally wrong to put a man to death for heresy than for 
murder ; that in many cases persecution for religious opinions is not 
only permissable, but highly advisable and necessary ; and, further, 
that no nation on earth, Catholic or Protestant, ever did, ever 
does, or ever will consistently act upon the idea that such perse- 
cution is forbidden by the laws of God or the Gospel. * * * 
Instances do incessantly occur in which persecution, in some form 
or other, is both wise, merciful, necessary, and christian." 
Again, in the September number for 1851 : — 
" It is difficult to say in which of the two popular expressions — 
1 the rights of civil liberty,' or l the rights of religious liberty,' is 
embodied the greatest amount of nonsense and falsehood. As 
these phrases are perpetually uttered both by Protestants and by 
some Catholics, they contain about as much truth and good sense 
as would be found in a cry for the inalienable right to suicide. * * # 
" Let this pass, then, in the case of Protestants and politicians. 
But how can it be justified in the case of Catholics, who are the 
children of a Church which has ever avowed the deepest hostility 
to the -principle of l religious liberty ,' and which never has given the 
shadow of a sanction to the theory that ' civil liberty,' as such, is 
necessarily a blessing at all ? How intolerable is it to see this 
miserable device for deceiving the Protestant world still so widely 
popular amongst us ! We say for deceiving the Protestant world ; 
though we are far enough from implying that there is not many a 
Catholic who really imagines himself to be a votary of ' religious 
liberty J and is confident that, if the tables were turned, and the 
Catholics were uppermost in* the land, he would in all circumstances 
grant others the same unlimited toleration he now demands for 
himself. Still, let our Catholic tolerationist be ever so sincere, 
he is only sincere because he does not take the trouble to look very 



334 

closely into his own convictions. His great object is to silence 
Protestants, or to persuade them to let him alone ; and as he 
certainly feels no personal malice against them, and laughs at their 
creed quite as cordially as he hates it, he persuades himself that he 
is telling the exact truth when he professes to be an advocate of 
religious liberty, and declares that no man ought to be coerced on 
account of his conscientious convictions. The practical result is 
that, now and then, but very seldom, Protestants are blinded, and 
are ready to clasp their unexpected ally in a fraternal embrace. 

" They are deceived, we repeat, nevertheless. Believe us not, 
Protestants of England and Ireland, for an instant, when you see 
us pouring forth our liberalisms. When you hear a Catholic 
orator at some public assemblage declaring solemnly that ' this is 
the most humiliating day in his life, when he is called upon to 
defend once more the glorious principle of religious freedom'' — 
especially if he says anything about the Emancipation Act and 
the 'toleration' it conceded to Catholics — be not too simple in 
your credulity. These are brave words, but they mean nothing : 
no ; nothing more than the promises of a parliamentary candidate 
to his constituents on the hustings. * * * 

" Shall I, therefore, fall in with this abominable delusion, and 
foster the notion of my fellow-countrymen, that they have a right 
to deny the truth of God, in the hope that I may throw dust in 
their eyes, and get them to tolerate my creed as one of the many 
forms of theological opinion prevalent in these latter days ? Shall 
I foster that damnable doctrine, that Socinianism, and Calvinism, 
and Anglicism, aud Judaism are not every one of them mortal 
sins, like murder and adultery ? Shall I lend my countenance 
to this unhappy persuasion of my brother, that he is not flying in 
the face of Almighty God every day that he remains a Protestant ? 
Shall I hold out hopes to him that I will not meddle with his 
creed, if he will not meddle with mine ? Shall I lead him to think 
that religion is a matter for private opinion, and tempt him to 
forget that he has no more right to his religious vieivs than he has to 
my purse, or to my house, or my life-blood? No ! Catholicism is 
the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is 
truth itself. We might as rationally maintain that a sane man has 
a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as tliis theory 
of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equalled by its absurdity." 



835 

The merit of this acknowledgment is its candour ; but it is very 
.difficult to conceive how a reformer like Mr. Cobbett could be so 
inconsistent as to select the Roman Church as a pattern to repre- 
sent his sentiments and views on such subjects. The above extracts 
leave us in no doubt what we may have to expect if Romanism 
were dominant. 

Mr. Cobbett at one time fully appreciated the danger of our 
position. He warned us that " the object of the Roman Catholic 
clergy is to bring every one under the sway of the Pope ; every 
edict which they promulgate would be hostile in all its parts to 
liberty and to the happiness of man. It is not half measures they 
employ to accomplish this, as ecclesiastical history sufficiently de- 
monstrates:" — and he added, " If it is now intended to oppose a 
barrier to the daring encroachments of the Church of Rome ; if 
people's eyes are really beginning to open to the danger which 
threatens them ; and if they are desirous to maintain that footing 
which they now possess, they must not content themselves with 
merely attempting to lop off a branch from the poisoned tree ; 
they must lay the axe to the root, otherwise it will become more 
luxuriant by pruning, and finally prove too formidable for any 
attempts to overthrow it." a " I have uniformally observed, in my 
perusal of history, that the increase of ignorance and of oppression 
always kept pace with the increase of clerical power." 5 Indeed, Mr. 
Cobbett appeared at one time to dread the re-establishment of the 
dominion of clerical rule. On the restoration of Pius VII., he 
wrote : — 

u The power of Napoleon has been broken. The Pope has re- 
ascended the chair of St. Peter. The Inquisition has renewed its 
wholesome observances, by which the bodies of heretics are burned 
for the good of their souls." c 

Referring to this Pope, he says :— u No sooner have we got rid, 
according to the generally received opinion, of the most oppressive 
tyranny, in the government of Napoleon, that ever existed on 
earth, than a new tyrant rears up his head, who does not only 
meditate the establishment of a despotic sway over the bodies, but 
actually professes it to be his intention to subjugate the mind, of 
the whole human race to a spiritual domination." He expresses 

a Cobbett's " Political Register," vol. xxvi, pp. 319, 350. 
* Ibid, p. 312. « Ibid, p. 165. 



336 

his astonishment " at the folly of an attempt, on the part of any 
sovereign, to restore the barbarous usages and the superstitious 
rites of the dark ages." And he warns the sovereigns of Europe 
against " falling into the hands, and becoming the dupes, of a 
cunning and interested priesthood, who are ever on the watch to 
take advantage of public events and of weak minded sovereigns in 
order to forward their own ambitious projects." 

" But," adds Mr. Cobbett, "this is not the only circumstance, in 
the case of Pius, that has led to the re-establishment of these mon- 
strous institutions, and the avowal of these infamous principles, 
under which the Church of Rome formerly held the human mind 
in bondage. To this very country, to this enlightened age, to the 
thinking, the reflecting, the intelligent people of England, are to be 
ascribed more than to any other cause, the melancholy, the gloomy, 
the degrading, the disgraceful change that threatens to restore the 
Empire of the Clergy, by which the world was formerly, for so many 
centuries, plunged in midnight darkness." a 

" Nations," Mr. Cobbett has told us, " were impoverished to 
foster, in abundance, in luxury, and often in drunkenness, legions 
of monks, £>riests, and pontiffs, from whom they derived no real 
benefits. Under pretence of bestowing stipends on the intercessors 
with God they really endowed a multitude of drones whose prayers 
and reveries procured only misery and dissensions." * * * "By 
the cares of these spiritual guides, concord was banished from 
states; princes sunk into bondage; the people were blinded; science 
was stifled; nations were impoverished; true morality was un- 
known." 5 * * * " It is to Great Britain that mankind owe the 
re-establishment — the revival — of those orders of monks, of friars, 
of nuns, which our forefathers were in use to regard as the most 
disgraceful and immoral of all institutions." 

Mr. Cobbett then points out the method the Pope was in 
his day adopting to subjugate the people to priestly dominion, 
namely, by the re-introduction and encouragement of monastic 
orders -which he so deprecated. " Their measures," he says, " seem 
to savour too much of an intention to support the Papal See in her 
schemes of universal dominion over the consciences of men. Should 
this be the case, which I earnestly hope it is not, the sovereigns of 

a Cobbett's " Political Eegister,' 7 vol. xxv, p. 602. 

b Ibid, vol. xxvi, pp. 316, 317. c Ibid, p. 348. 



337 

Great Britain and of Austria will only have themselves to blame 
should they find — perhaps when it is too late — that his Holiness 
meditates the subjugation of the bodies, as well as the consciences, 
of their subjects. I also observe that Pope Pius, in the gigantic 
strides he is making for universal dominion, has published another 
edict for the purpose of restoring all those ancient monastic orders 
by which the Catholic cause was formerly so extensively promoted, 
and the Popedom supported in its arrogant pretensions to dispose of 
crowns and to release entire nations from their oaths of allegiance. 
A perusal of this document gives rise to many important reflec- 
tions, and naturally leads one to make some inquiries respecting a 
fraternity whose existence, in former ages, was so prejudicial to 
society, and who are again threatened to be let loose to ravage 
civilized Europe." a The edict itself, which Mr. Cobbett gives in 
the same place, 5 ends thus : — " It is hoped, from the religion of the 
governments and the zeal of the bishops of the Catholic world, 
that they will patronise the establishment of these asylums of 
Christian duty and Evangelical perfection ; " but which Mr. Cob- 
bett declared to be the asylum of " sainted ruffians." " It is 
easy to understand," he adds, " why a race of interested monks, a 
banditti of sanctified robbers, should have formerly succeeded in im- 
posing these absurd doctrines upon the votaries of their faith. But 
it is amazing to find that so many entire nations, so many millions 
of rational beings, should still continue to be their willing dupes." c 

Again I ask — Can this be the same William Cobbett who sub- 
sequently wrote the so-called History of the Reformation, wherein 
he laments the destruction of these same monastic orders; and the 
Cobbett who extolled the alleged beneficent rule of the Popes and 
Roman priesthood, and deplored the baneful effects of the Refor- 
mation which swept them from our shores, and subverted that very 
spiritual dominion and clerical despotism which only a few years 
before he had enveighed against and dreaded ? 

But, to come back to the charge — that the Reformation was "en- 
gendered in beastly lust, brought forth in hypocrisy and perfidy." 
A ritualistic lecturer has lately delivered the same sentiment, 
with the intention of conveying the same impression as that 
wished to be produced by Mr. Cobbett, but with a vehemence 

a Cobbett's " Political Register," vol. xxvi, p. 373. 

b Ibid, p. 374. c ibid, vol. xxxvi, p. 203. 



338 

•which defeats its object. 3 He adds, however : — "A church [that 
is, the nnreformed Romish Church] which could produce in its 
highest lay and clerical rank such a set of miscreants as the 
leading English and Scottish reformers must have been in a per- 
fectly rotten state, as rotten as France was when the righteous 
judgment of the great revolution fell upon it." b What must have 
then been the state of Romish depravity ! Mr. Cobbett must have 
had peculiar ideas of immorality if he considered it possible for the 
priesthood and people to have sunk lower in the scale of vice than 
what is said of them in their own records. I have in another 
work given a few specimens of such acknowledgments during the 
Reformation period, and which I here repeat ; they are given in 
full in the fourteenth volume of the Jesuits Labbseus and Cossarte's 
Edition of the Councils. Cardinal Laurence (St. Anastasia) de- 
clared that the German heresy (Lutheranism) "had derived no 
little advantage — partly, from the abandoned morals and lives of the 
clergy ; partly, from the no longer to be concealed abuse of the 
sacred ordinances and the ecclesiastical constitutions." c This was 
in the year 1524. One of the express objects of the Council of 
Trent was declared to be " the reformation of the clergy." d Cor- 
nelius, Bishop of Bitonto, in his speech delivered before the as- 
sembled doctors of the Trent Council (year 1545), e exclaimed, 
" With what monsters of baseness, w 7 ith what a heap of filth, with 
what pestilence are not both the priests and the people corrupted 
in the holy Church of God ! I place my case in your hands, O 
fathers ! Begin with the Sanctuary of God, and see if any modesty, 
any shame, any hope or reasonable expectation remains of good 
living; if there be not unrestrained and unconquerable lust, a 
singular audacity, and incredible wickedness." * * * " Also, 
whilst virtue and learning are neglected by those whom we ought 
to follow as living and breathing laws, vice and ignorance are 
raised in their stead to the highest honours, and it has at length 
been brought to pass that edification has made place for destruc- 
tion, example for scandal, morals for corruption, the observance of 
the law for its contempt, strictness for laxity, mercy for impurity, 

a See ante, p. 261, 262. 

i> Dr. Littledale's " Lecture on Ritualistic Innovations," p. 15. London, 
1868. 
c Col. 414. a Col. 733. e Col. 992. 



339 

piety for hypocrisy and smoke, preaching for contention and pride 
and for the vilest gain, and, to sum all in one sentence, which it is 
"grievous to utter, the odour of life for the odour of death." Peter 
Danesius also bore witness to the fact that " almost all the evils of 
the Church arose from the depravity of the ministers." Friar 
George, of St. James, spoke of the "infidel prelates" in the Church. 8 
He declared that " rich benefices were bestowed on the unworthy 
and unlearned, on pupils, and even on boys ; that the clergy and 
the rulers worshipped the golden calves." Friar Henry, of St. 
Jerome, accused the priesthood of " gluttony, ambition, and 
avarice" (a.d. 1562). b Again, take the estimate given by Francis 
Anthony Paganus of the face " of the Holy Roman [unreformed] 
Church." After attributing all the evils to a corrupt clergy, he 
thus sums up the result : — 

" I say nothing of public adulteries, rapes, and robberies ; I pass 
over the great effusion of Christian blood, unlawful exactions, 
impositions gratuitously accumulated, and, from whatever cause 
they were introduced, persevered in without cause, and innumerable 
oppressions of this kind. I pass over the proud pomps of clothing, 
extraordinary expenses beyond the requirements of the rank in life, 
drunkenness, surfeits, and the inordinate Hlthiness of luxury, such 
as never took place before ; womankind was never less modest and 
bashful, young men were never more unbridled and undisciplined, 
the old were never more irreligious and foolish ; in fact, never 
was there in all persons less fear of God, honour, virtue, and 
modesty, and never more carnal licentiousness, abuse, and irregu- 
larity." And so he proceeds, laying all these ills at the door of 
the clergy. 

Mezerai, in his " Chronological Abridgment of the Sixteenth 
Century," the period selected by Mr. Cobbett for special admi- 
ration, gives the following picture of the Roman clergy : — 

" The disorders and vices of the clergy reached the highest 
point and became so public as to render them the objects of the 
hatred and contempt of the people. * * * The churches were 
without pastors, the monasteries without monks, the regular clergy 
without discipline, the churches and holy houses in ruins and 
changed into the dens of robbers. The bishops fled from their 
dioceses as though they were frightful solitudes. The amusements 
a Col. 1047. b Col. 1388. 



340 

of Paris and the occupations of the Court were their usual occu- 
pations." 

Cromer, the Romish Bishop of Varmia, in Poland, gave an 
account of the Roman priesthood only shortly previous to the 
holding of the Trent Council. He said : — 

u Who can wonder if the priesthood has become now not merely 
contemptible but an object of disgust, where there is an absence 
of everything which rendered those of former clays reverend and 
beloved. No one attends to his office ; indeed, they know not how. 
All, abandoning their duty both to God and man, scandalously 
employ the property of the poor and the patrimony of Christ for 
their own benefit ; in fact, it has come to this, that we are ashamed 
either to be or be considered as priests. There is no kind of vice 
which, without any the slightest fear, we are not guilty of prac- 
tising; our sins, like Sodom, we proclaim far and abroad. What 
wonder if we are despised, tormented, plundered; made a general 
laughing-stock and become hateful to our people, and ridiculous 
to our opponents ! ' Ye have made void the covenant of Levi, 
saith the Lord of Hosts ; therefore have I also made you con- 
temptible and base before all people.' The wonder is, that 
Christianity is not commonly set utterly at nought and abolished, 
seeing that the priests, even the chief among them, are so far from 
being able to instruct others, that some of them hardly know why 
they are called Christians, nor what the nature and peculiar doc- 
trines of it are." a 

As for the state of the priesthood in England, vices and sins of 
the lowest grade, and which brought down the wrath of God on 
the devoted cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, infected almost the 
entire brood. b Even Mr. Cobbett, whose mind was not very 
delicate or vocabulary choice, would have found it difficult to 
describe a lower state of degradation. If he was really ignorant 
of the true history of England in Popish times, he was utterly 
unqualified to write of the Reformation. The sources whence in- 

a " Tabularium Eccles. Rorn. ri publicavit E. S. Cyprianus, p. 205. 
Erancof. 1743. 

b " Considerandum etiam est, quia liactenus ita fuit publicum hoc pec- 
catum ut vix aliquis pro eo erubescaret, et ideo multi magnitudinem 
nescientes in illud se preecipitabant."— Wilkins' " Cone. Mag. Brit.," vol. i, 
p. 362, et seq. London, 1737. 



formation on this subject can be procured are so obvious, and it 
was in his power so easily to obtain it, that he cannot be excused 
on the plea of ignorance. He who undertakes to write history is 
bound to examine every authentic document within his reach ; and, 
fortunately, the history of Popish doings is not to be gathered 
from Protestant writers alone, but from the decrees and canons 
passed by Popish councils and avowed by Romish writers. 

Indeed, Romanists themselves are not at all backward in imputing 
the origin of the Reformation itself — that is, the propagation of 
what they are pleased to call heretical doctrines — to the vices of 
the Romish priesthood. At a synod of Romish bishops convoked 
by Lippomani, the Papal Legate, at Lowicz, in the year 1556, the 
vices of the clergy came under consideration, and the following is 
recorded on the subject : — " We say, then, that the first cause of the 
introduction of heresy into this kingdom was the negligence of 
the pastors and prelates of the flock of Christ ; among whom, as 
the Apostolic See holds the chief place, so we fear that it is (may 
at forgive us), to some extent, also the cause of this evil, principally 
for four reasons." After giving these reasons, laying the respon- 
sibility directly not only on the bishops but on the entire priest- 
hood, they conclude : — " For we see all places filled with luxury, 
pomp, avarice, lusts, idleness and carelessness, and, what in priests 
seems worse than all, ignorance of God's law," &c. a 

But to cite the authority of Pope Pius V., the cotemporary of 
our Elizabeth ; he himself bears testimony as well to the vices of the 
priesthood as to their effect in bringing about a change in religion. 
His biographer, Gabutius, b publishes his epistles with all due autho- 
rity. In the Fourth Epistle, in the first book, addressed to the Arch- 
bishop of Saltsburg (17th June, 1566), Pope Pius V. writes that — 
"he had been informed, by the best authority on the spot, that the 
greater part of the beneficed and dignified clergy in Germany, who 
ought to set the best example, without fear of God or man, kept 
•concubines openly, and introduced them into churches and public 
places like lawful wives, giving them the titles of their own dig- 
nities and offices ; that, from the contempt thus brought upon the 

a " Eespon. Praalat. in Cone. Lovitiensi ;" in Mansi. Suppl.. torn, v, 
<;oL 709. 

b " De Vita et Rebus Gestis Pii V., Pont. Max. fee, cum rrivilegio Ponife." 
Ex. Typog. A. Zannetti, mdcv., superiorum auctoritate. 



342 

clergy by themselves, they had lost all authority, and hence the 
increase of heresy ; which [so adds the writer] can never be repressed 
till the abominable vice of concubinage is extirpated." In the 
Ninth Epistle (a.d. 1567) to the Archbishop of Cambray,the Pope 
asserts " the corrupt and depraved morals of the clergy to be the cause 
of heresies.' 1 '' The Twelfth Epistle further attests the corrupt lives 
of the German prelates of the Church, " who, forgetful of their duty 
and their own salvation, converted the revenues of the churches to 
the indulgence of their pleasures, luxury, and secular vanities." 
And again, in the Fourteenth Epistle, book ii. (a.d. 1568) the Pope 
complains of the " ignorance and corrupt morals of the Bohemian 
clergy ;" and the Twentieth Epistle, in book ii., charges " the clergy 
as depraved by the daily practice of vice." a If, then, the Reforma- 
tion was "engendered in beastly lust," surely the condemnation 
should be reserved for those whose vices rendered a reformation 
needful, and should not be bestowed on those who severed them- 
selves from immorality, vice and superstition ; and it is no argu- 
ment to urge against that Reformation that some who, perhaps for 
worldly or other motives, joined the Reformed Church committed- 
similar vices and excesses as were publicly practised in the com- 
munity they professed to have abandoned. 

Let us turn from this sad picture to contemplate for a moment,, 
and in conclusion, — 

The Spirit and Genius of the Reformation, 
As affecting this country Religiously, Socially, and Politically. 

It was said by Sir Robert Peel that, under a Reformed Church 
and Protestant constitution, " we have enjoyed more liberty ; we 
have acquired more glory ; we possess more character and power, 
than hitherto has fallen to the lot of any other country on the 
globe." b 

I. The Reformation has purged our Church of the grossest 
delusions and superstitions which a corrupt priesthood has invented 
to debase mankind. What can be more delusive than to believe 
that a priest can of his own free will bring down the Great God, 
the creator and architect of the universe, in the same body which 

a See Mendham's " Life of Pius V.," cap. ii. London, 1832. 

b Speech of the Eight Hon. Kobert Peel, May 9, 1817, in the House of 

Commons. 



was born of the Virgin Mary — which walked on this earth, which 
was crucified, and which ascended into heaven — by consecrating a bit 
of bread, the whole substance of which, they pretend, is entirely 
changed into the very body, blood, bones and nerves, soul and divi- 
nity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ? What can be more super- 
stitious and idolatrous than — first, to assert that such a change 
takes place ; and then, to give the " beggarly element " the supreme 
worship due to God alone, under the vain delusion that His divinity 
exists in every particle of it ? 

The Reformation has relieved us of the delusive notion that a 
priest, by virtue of his assumed office — though he himself may be 
in deadly sin — can judicially remit (on condition that we confess 
to him) our mortal sins, and with them the eternal punishment 
due to such sins, and with equal facility remit the alleged remain- 
ing temporal punishment by the application of Indulgences ! 

These two great assumptions by the priesthood of Rome placed 
them, according to their own estimate, not only in the rank oj 
angels but of gods, for what greater power on earth, they say, can 
exist than that of making their God and of freeing sins. a 

The Reformation has swept away images from our churches ; and 
exposed the cheats practised by sordid monks and priests, effected 
hj their pretended miraculous and " holy" images. 

The Reformation dissipated the vain delusion that the Pope's 
canonised saints could hear our prayers, and that we can be saved 
by their merits. 

The Reformation has removed from her pedestal the great 
Roman goddess — Rome's Virgin — whom they represent as not 
simply sharing the throne of the Almighty in heaven, but even 

a " Cum episcopi et sacerdotes tanquam Dei interpretes et internuncii 
quidam sint, qui ejus nomine divinam legem et vitse prascepta homines 
edocent, et ipsius Dei personam in terris gerunt ; perspicuum est earn 
esse illorum functionem, qua nulla major excogitari possit : quare merito 
non solum angeli, sed Dii etiam, quod Dei immortalis vim et numcn 
apicd nos teneant, appellantar. Quamvis autem omni tempore summam 
dignitatem obtinuerint, tamen Novi Testamenti sacerdotes caeteris omnibus 
honore longe antecellunt ; potestas enim turn corpus et sanguinem Domini 
nostri conficiendi et offerendi, turn peccata remittendi, quo3 illis collata est, 
humanam quoque rationem atque intelligentiam superat ; nedum ei aliquid 
par et simile in terris inveniri queat."'— " Catcch. Concil. Trideutini," 
pars ii ; De Ordinis Sacramento, pars ii, sec. ii, p. 827. Edit. Paris, 1848, 



344 

commanding Him as His mother. Indeed, her worship had so far 
advanced at the time of the Reformation, that Erasmus, a Priest 
of the Roman Church, and cotemporary of Luther, said "that the 
people paid greater worship to the Virgin than to Christ." a 

The Reformation swept away the fond but lucrative fable of 
purgatory, and with it the ecclesiastical bank of imaginary super- 
abundant merits of departed saints, called the " celestial treasure," 
and exposed the barefaced forgeries of their fictitious drafts on 
this imaginary bank, pretended to be conveyed by indulgences ; as 
also the ecclesiastical, but not the less lucrative, delusion of masses 
for the dead. b 

The Reformation abrogated the cruel and inhuman law pro- 
hibiting the clergy the right of lawful marriage. 

It relieved the people from the grievous burden of having to 
confess all their sins to a priest under pain of eternal damnation, a 
dangerous system, which at once made the penitent the slave of 
the priest. 

It encouraged the free use and unrestrained circulation of the 
Word of God to all classes, and gave us a liturgy in our mother 
tongue. 

a " Prrecipue Deipara Virgo, cui vulgus hominmn plus prope tribuit quata 
Filio." — " Stultitise Laus," &c; oper. torn, iv, col. 444. Bat. 1703. 

b " A religion," as Mr. Froud, in his " History of England" (vol. ii, p. 183, 
London, 1858), appropriately terms it, "that slips of paper duly paid for 
could secure indemnity." 

The following passage from Froud (ibid, p. 36,) may be most appropriately 
quoted in this place : — 

" They [the early Protestants] found the service of God buried in a system 
where obedience was dissipated into superstition; where sin was expiated by 
the vicarious virtues of other men ; where, instead of leading a holy life, 
men were taugbt that their souls might be saved through masses said for 
them at a money-rate by priests whose licentiousness disgraced the nation 
which endured it ; a system in which, amidst all the trickery of the pardons, 
pilgrimages, indulgences, double-faced as these inventions are — wearing 
one meaning in the apologies of theologians, and quite another of the 
multitude who live and suffer under their influence— one plain fact, at least, 
is visible — the people substantially learnt that all evils which could touch 
either their spirits or their bodies might be escaped by means which re- 
solved themselves, scarcely disguised, into the payment of money." 

Our late historian Macaulayhashad the distinguished honor of having his 
"History of England," by a decree of the Inquisition of Rome, dated 
24th April, 1853, placed in the " Index of Prohibited Books." It will be 
Mr. Froud's turn next. 



345 

II. Then, as to the social benefits conferred by the Reforma- 
tion : — 

It swept from our shores an army of lazy monks who lived 
on the fat of the land, consuming a large portion of its wealth, 
without labour or giving anything in return ; a system which 
created poverty and wretchedness in others in proportion as the 
wealth of the Church increased. The monks were " trained bands " 
of the Pope, subject to no local ecclesiastical or civil jurisdiction, 
existing, as it were, only to work his behests, and gratify unre- 
strained their own lusts and other vices. Their abodes were the 
harbours of refuge of every thief, vagabond, or cut-throat who 
evaded the secular arm by taking asylum or refuge under their 
roof, which they called the " right of sanctuary." 

The Reformation diminished the wealth, number, and power of the 
clergy, abolished their forced celibacy, and rendered them respect- 
able members of society. It brought them within the jurisdiction 
of the civil courts ; it excluded them from holding offices of state ; 
and restrained the jurisdiction of bishops and of the ecclesiastical 
courts within reasonable bounds. 

The Reformation diminished the number of saints, and holy 
days and fast days. 

It has saved the country enormous sums expended in masses, 
penances, pilgrimages, processions, canonization of saints, eccle- 
siastical devotions ; in the purchase of (so-called) holy relics, beads, 
images, and other consecrated articles. It has saved this country 
the vast amount of money which was taken from us in Peter's 
pence for dispensations and indulgences; and the vast sums of 
money which were drawn from this country in "pensions, censes, 
procurations, suits for provisions and expediting of bulls, for 
archbishoprics and bishoprics, and for delegacies, and the receipts 
in causes of contentions and appeals, jurisdictions, legantine dis- 
pensations, licences, faculties, grants, relaxations, abolitions, and 
infinite sorts of bulls, briefs, and instruments of sundry natures 
and kinds, to the great decay and impoverishment of the kingdom," 
for such was the language of the Act of Parliament which cut off 
these extortions. 

The Pope claimed the revenues of all vacant benefices in England, 
and the goods of all intestate clergymen. Innocent IV. claimed 
the twentieth of all ecclesiastical revenues without exception, and a 

2 A 



346 

third of such as exceeded a hundred marks a year, and half of the 
income of non-residents — a power the Pope claimed to exercise in 
the proportion that his want of means urged him to exact. He 
appointed foreigners and absentees to benefices, and concentrated 
even ten livings in one person. 

The Reformation swept away all these abuses, and many others 
of a similar nature. 

III. Politically. The Pope of Rome claimed as well a civil as 
he did an ecclesiastical jurisdiction over this country. In the days 
of Edward III. the taxes levied by the Pope in this country ex- 
ceeded five times the revenue which was received by the King. 

The canon law of the Roman Church was imposed on this land. 
Under this law the Pope claimed the right to depose (so-called) 
heretical princes, and to absolve their subjects from their oaths of 
allegiance. It was under the authority of this same canon law the 
Pope claimed the power of placing the whole country under inter- 
dict and of excommunicating individuals ; and he claimed the 
right of appeal in all judicial cases. The Reformation made a 
clean sweep of all these, in abolishing the Pope's usurped supre- 
macy. It was due to Elizabeth, of happy memory, to have con- 
firmed our independence of this foreign prince by the promulgation 
of the ever memorable declaration that : — 

The Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm 
of England. 

Mr. Cobbett may affect to despise these blessings, and may lend 
his pen as a hired tool to convey the feelings of bitter disappoint- 
ment and petty revenge of a defeated faction. But such language 
and such sentiments as are uttered by Mr. Cobbett throughout his 
work are standing monuments of the inconsistency of his entire 
political career, which was that of a professed reformer and a cen- 
surer of abuses. He himself was the very last person, to judge 
from his published and oft-repeated declarations, to submit to such 
a degradation as the system of Popery necessarily demands. 

We have heard Mr. Cobbett's opinion of the Reformation. 1 
cannot better conclude my Reply than to place in contrast the 
words of the immortal Milton : — 

" When I recall to mind at last, after so many dark ages 
wherein the huge overshadowing train of error had almost swept 
all the stars out of the firmament of the Church, how the bright 



347 

and blissful Reformation, by divine power, struck through the 
black and settled night of ignorance and antichristian tyranny, 
methinks a sovereign and reviving joy must needs rush into the 
bosom of him that reads or hears, and the sweet odour of the 
returning Gospel imbathe his soul with the fragrancy of heaven. 
Then was the sacred Bible sought out of the dusty corners where 
profane falsehood and neglect had thrown it ; the schools opened ; 
divine and human learning raked out of the embers of forgotten 
tongues ; the provinces and cities trooping apace to the new-erected 
banner of salvation; the martyrs, with the unresistible might of 
weakness, shaking the powers of darkness, and scorning the fiery 
rage of the old red dragon." 

Having now performed the task imposed on me by the urgent 
solicitation of friends anxious to counteract the baneful effects of 
the deceitful work I have attempted to refute, I have to regret 
that that task came upon me at a time when I was more than 
ordinarily engrossed in important professional occupations, and 
that the duty did not devolve on a more able and experienced pen 
than mine. With reservation and modesty let me borrow the 
sentiment uttered by the illustrious Camden : — 

" What the loftiness of the argument requireth, I confess with 
sorrow I have not performed ; yet have I willingly bestowed what 
pains I have been able. I have neither in other works, nor yet in 
this, in any sort satisfied myself. Nevertheless, I shall hold my- 
self recompensed to the full, if, by my ready willingness to pre- 
serve the memory of things, to relate truths, and to train up men's 
minds to honesty and wisdom, I may find a place for a time 
amongst the petty writers of great matters. Whatsoever it be — 

M To God, my Country and Posterity, at the Altar of 
Truth I Dedicate and Consecrate it." 



nxis. 



LONDON : 
KELLY & CO., PRINTERS, 
GATE STREET, LINCOLN'S INN FIELD?. W 



INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, 1862. 

Jurors' Award— S. W. Partridge, Class XXVIII., Section C, Honourable Mention for 
Illustrated Books. 



NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS 



PUBLISHED BY 

S. W. PARTRIDGE & CO., 

9, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 



The SALOON SHOW ROOM is open daily from Ten till Six. Saturday till Two. 



TIM DOOLAN, the Irish Emigrant. By the Author of " Mick Tracy.'' 
Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

pHRIST IN THE PENTATEUCH ; or, Things Old and New con- 

vj cerning Jesus. By H. Bourn, Author of "Black Diamonds," &c. Crown, 8vo, cloth, 5s. 

THE THREEFOLD MYSTERY : Hints on the Song of Songs, 
viewed as a Prophecy of the Double United Church of Jew and Gentile. By the 
Author of " The Gathered Lily," &c. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

CONVERSATIONS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Beiug 

\j a simple Exposition for the Young, according to the Views of the Rev. John Cum - 
ming, D.D., and the Rev. E. B. Elliott. By M. L. Yorke Draper. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 5s. 

THE TIME OF THE END : Its Antecedents and its Character. 
By the Rev. Joseph Baylee, D.D., Late Principal of St. Aidnn's Theological College, 
Birkenhead. Author of "The Intermediate State of the Blessed Dead." 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

THE ROAD TO ROME, vta OXFORD ; or, Ritualism identical 
with Romanism. By Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL.D., Author of " The Papacy," &c. Crown 
8vo, cloth, 5s. 

N INTRODUCTION TO THE READING AND STUDY OF 

THE ENGLISH BIBLE. By W. Carpenter. 3 vols., cloth, 16s. (or in 12 parts, 



A 

Is. 6d. each) 



mHE PASTOR'S WIFE : a Memoir of Airs. Sherman, of Surrey 

1 Chapel. By her Husband. With Portrait. Thirteenth Thousand. Crown 8vo, 
cloth, 3s. 6d. 

A NCIENT LANDMARKS ; or, The Chief Lessons of the Epistles to 

i\ the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. By J. M. Denniston, 
M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

mHE ALBUM SCRIPTURE TEXT BOOK. 18mo, cloth, gilt, Is. 6d. 
n W. PARTRIDGE AND CO.'S FIVE-SHILLING SAMPLE 

^i PACKET OF SMALL GOSPEL BOOKS, for wide distribution. Seventy-two 
various. Sent free on receipt of stamps. 

[6 *] 



8. W. Partridge <& Co.'s 



A NTITYPICAL PARALLELS ; or, The Kingdom of Israel and of 

/I Heaven. With Notes, Illustrations, and Maps of the Original Occupation of Pales- 
tine, and of the Millennial Kingdom. By the same Author. Royal 8vo, cloth, 16s. 

"mHE LAST ADAM." By Lieut. -General Goodwyn, Author of 

JL " Antitypical Parallels," &c. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

THE " GREATER THAN SOLOMON." Twelve Lectures on the 
First Four Chapters of the Sacred Book of Canticles. By Rev. S. Allen Windle. Cloth, 
2s. ; gilt edges, 2s. 6d. 

ENGLISH DERIVED FROM HEBREW; with Glances at Greek 
and Latin. By R. Govett. Demy 8vo, cloth, 4s. 

A CONCORDANCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, with One or 

A more References to every Verse, except the Lists of Names. Compiled by Rev. 
Thomas Snow, Halifax. Royal 16mo, limp cloth, Is. 6d. ; cloth, red edges, 2s. 

mHE BELIEVER SUFFERING; or, Comfort, Warning, and 

J_ Counsel to those in Trouble. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

HENRY VIII. : an Historical Sketch, as affecting the Reformation in 
England. By C. H. Collette. Royal 8vo, paper, Is. 

mHE TEMPERANCE BIBLE COMMENTARY: giving at One 

.1. View Version, Criticism, and Exposition, in regard to all Passages of Huly Writ 
bearing on " Wine" or "Strong Drink," or illustrating the Principles of the Temperance 
Reformation. By F. R. Lees and Dawson Burns. Second Edition. Demy 8vo, cloth 6s. 

BRIGHT EXAMPLES. Short Sketches of Christian Life. 18mo, 
cloth, Is. 

mHE EVIDENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, derived 

J. from its Original Propagation in the World ; being a portion of the Origines Sacra of 
Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester. Abridged and Annotated by G. R. Wynne, B.A. 
Foolscap 8vo, cloth, Is. 6d. 

THE SABBATH ON THE ROCK, and the Gospel in the Decalogue. 
By a Sabbath School Teacher. With Preface by Rev. Dr. Duff. Demy 8vo, limp 
cloth, Is. 6d. 

THE REVELATION UNRAVELLED. An Outline Exposition on 
a New Plan. By Author of the " Coming Crisis." With Preface by Rev. R. Chester. 
12mo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

T7CCE AGNUS DEI: ECCE HOMO, ECCE DEUS ! The Testi- 

1 J mony of Jesus Christ concerning Himself, His Nature, and Mission. Crown 8vo, 
limp cloth, Is. 6d. 

mHE PRESENT CRISIS OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, and the 

JL Inquiry, Why her Spiritual Triumphs and Extension are being so much arrested in 
the Nineteenth Century ? By E. Cornwall. Crown 8vo, limp cloth, Is. 

EARTH'S EVENTIDE, and the Bright Dawn of the Eternal Day. 
By Rev. J. G. Gregory, M.A., Minister of Park Chapel, Chelsea, late Rector of Bon- 
church. Fourth Edition. Foolscap 8vo, cloth, 4s. 6d. 

mHE LAST WEEK ; or, Things which must shortly come to pass, 

JL as Revealed in the Seven- Sealed Book of the Secret Counsels of God. Compiled by 
C.P. O. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. 

RECONCILIATION ; or, How to be Saved. By Rev. W. Taylor, of 
California. Crown 8vo, cloth, Is. ; 2s. 6d. ; gilt, 3s. 6d. 

mHE INFANCY AND MANHOOD OF CHRISTIAN LIFE. By 

X the same Author. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. gilt, 3s. 6d. 



New Works and New Editions. 



THE SAINTED DEAD. Being Thoughts concerning the Resting- 
Place of the Souls of God's People, before the Resurrection. Is. 

fvIAGRAMS AND PICTURES OF THE WORKING MEN'S 

~U EDUCATIONAL UNION. Printed on cloth, 3 feet by 4 feet, coloured for gas-light, 
500 various. (Full List for one stamp.) 

THE FUTURE OF EUROPE. What will it be ? and will France 
be the Leading Power ? A Historic and Prophetic Search. By T. Ryan. Third 
Edition. Crown 8vo. Is. 

HYMN-WRITERS AND THEIR HYMNS. By Rev. S. W. Chris- 
tophers. Post 8vo, cloth, red edges, 7s. 6d. 

p EORGE FOX, THE FRIENDS, AND THE EARLY BAPTISTS. 

VJ By William Tallack. Crown 8vo, cloth, with Portrait, 2s. 6d. 

pHART OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION AT ONE VIEW. 

VJ With the Key Remodelled and Improved. By George Boole Chaloner. Mounted 
on canvas, with head and roller, 5s. 

OELECTED SERMONS. By the late Rev. James Bolton, B.A., 

O Minister of St. Paul's Episcopal Chapel, Kilburn. Second Series. With Photograph 
Portrait. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. 

HYMNS OF LIFE AND PEACE. By J. Denham Smith. Impl. 
16mo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

LIFE IN CHRIST." By the same Author. 16mo, cloth, Is. 6d. ; 
gilt, 2s. 

USIC FOR TIMES OF REFRESHING HYMN-BOOK. With 

Appendix. Edited by J. Denham Smith. Small 4to, red edges, 3s. 6d. 

WINNOWED GRAIN; or, Selections from the Addresses of the Rev. 
J. Denham Smith. New and cheaper edition. Demy 16mo. Third edition. Cloth, 
Is. 6d. 

T ONDON AND BRIGHTON ADDRESSES. By Rev. J. Denham 

Jj Smith. 16mo, cloth, gilt, Is. (Or in Four Penny Nos.) 



M 



LIFE AND WALK : Seven Addresses. By the same Author. Demy 
16mo, cloth, Is. 6d. 

T IFE TRUTHS. By the same Author. 16mo, cloth, Is. 6d. ; gilt, 

.Li 2s. (People's Edition, 6d.) 

«rpHE CRUSHER" AND THE CROSS. A Narrative of a Re- 

-L markable Conversion. By A. Fergusson, Author of " Life's By-ways," &c. Crown 
8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

PETER BEDFORD, the Spitalfields Philanthropist. By William 
Tallack, Author of " Malta under the Phoenicians," &c. Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

DRECIOUS TRUTHS FOR EVERY ONE. Imperial 32mo. 16th 

L thousand, limp cloth, Is. ; cloth, red edges Is. 6d. 

TjWERY-DAY WONDERS OF BODILY LIFE; essential to be 

-Li known for Health and Comfort. By Anne Bullar. Eighth Thousand. Fcap. 8vo, 
cloth, Is. 

ORSE THAN DEATH ; a Tale. By Harriet Power, Author of 

" Beatrice Langton," &c. Fcap. 8vo, cloth gilt, 2s. 6d. 

T OST AND FOUND ; a Temperance Tale. By the Author of "Jane 

-Li Grey's Resolution," &c. Royal 16mo, 2s. 



w 



S. W. Partridge & Co.'s 



HE HYMNS OF HEAVEN ; or, The Songs of the Saints in Glory. 

By James Grant, Author of " Our Heavenly Home," &c. Foolscap, cloth, 2s. 6d. 



1 



iHE PRECIOUSNESS OF CHRIST; or, Meditations on the Per- 
son and Work of the Lord Jesus. By Rev. H. Knapp, Curate of St. Helen's and Sea 
View, Isle of Wight. 18mo, cloth, Is. 6d. 

OT. MARY'S CONVENT; or, Chapters in the Life of a Nun. By the 

O Author of " Thady D'Arcy," &c. Foolscap 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

THE TEST OF TRUTH: an Argument and a Narrative. By Mary 
Jane Graham. Ninth Edition. Royal 32mo, cloth gilt, Is. (or separate, 6d. each.) 

THE TEMPERANCE REFORMATION MOVEMENT in the 
Church of England : its Principles and Progress. By Rev. H. J. Ellison, M.A., Vicar 
of Windsor. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, Is. 

MARY DON'T HEAR US ! " With four Illustrations. Square 
16mo, cloth, Is. 

QCRIPTURE TEACHINGS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN. By 

Elizabeth C. Ashby. Old Testament. Royal 16mo, cloth, Is. 6d. 

QCRIPTURR TEACHINGS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

By the same Author. Royal 16mo, cloth, Is. 6d. 

pHARLES WESLEY, THE POET OF METHODISM. With List 

\J of his Poetical Works, and Autographs of Two Original Hymns. Cloth Is. 

THE STEPS OF JESUS. A Narrative Harmony of the FourEvan- 

J. gelists, in the Words of the Authorised Version. With Map. By R. Mimpriss. New 
Edition. 18mo, cloth, Is. 6d. ; 48mo, cloth, 8d. 

THE DOWN-HILL OF LIFE; its Exercises, Temptations, and 
Dangers. With the effectual Method of Rendering the Descent Safe and Easy, and 
its Termination Triumphant. By Rev. T. H. Walker, Author of " Good Wives, Good 
Servants, and Happy Homes," &c. Crown 8vo, cloth, Is. 6d. 

QELF-FORMATION ; or, Aids and Helps to Mind-Life. By Rev. 

O Paxton Hood. New Edition. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 



E 



OGER MILLER; or, Heroism in Humble Life. By Rev. G. Orme. 

With Engraving. New Edition. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. 



rjlHE PASTOR AND THE PARISH ; or, The Minister as Preacher, 

J Pastor, Catechist, &c. By John B. Heard, M.A., Perpetual Curate of Bilton, Harrogate. 
(One Hundred Guinea Essay.) Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

mHE MODEL PARISH. A Prize Essay on the Pastoral Character 

1 and Pastoral Work. By F. R. Wynne, A. B., Incumbent of St. Mary's, Kilkenny. 
(Fifty Guinea Essay.) Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

mHE EVANGELICAL HYMN-BOOK. 32mo, Is. 6d., 2s., 3s. ; 18mo, 

JL 3s., 4s. 6d. 

THE JAPANESE EMPIRE; its Physical, Political, and Social 
Condition and History. By S. B. KEMISH. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

n OSPEL ECHOES ; or, Help to the Heralds of Salvation. By A. 

VJ Midlane. 3d. ; 6d. ; Is. 

TJEART MELODIES, AND LIFE LIGHTS. By A. M. H., Au- 

XI thoress of " The Life Look," &c. Square 18mo, cloth, Is. 



New Works and New Editions. 



M 



ICK TRACY, the Irish Scripture Reader. With Engravings. 

Eleventh Thousand. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

COUNSELS AND KNOWLEDGE FROM THE WORDS OF 

"VJ TRUTH. By Rev. F. Whitfield, M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

OPIRITUAL UNFOLDINGS FROM THE WORD OF LIFE. By 

*J the same Author. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

THE WORD UNVEILED. By the same Author. Crown 8vo, 
cloth, 3s. 6d. 

TRUTH IN CHRIST. By the same Author. Second Edition. 
Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

n LEANINGS FROM SCRIPTURE. By the same Author. Third 

VJ Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

yOICES FROM THE VALLEY TESTIFYING OF JESUS. 

V By the same Author. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

THE HARMONY OF SCIENCE AND FAITH; an Attempt to 

J- Ascertain how far Belief in the Bible is affected by Modern Scientific Discovery. By 
the Author of " The Bible in the Workshop." Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. 

HEAVENWARD HO ! or, Homeward Bound. A Seaman's Sunday 
Book. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, limp cloth, Is. 

IMPORTANT TRUTHS IN SIMPLE VERSE. Third Thousand. 

-L 18mo, Is. 6d. ; crimson gilt, 2s. 

MORNING DEWDROPS; or, The Juvenile Abstainer. By Mrs. 
Balfour. Fifth Edition, enlarged. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

n EMS FOR THE AFFLICTED. Third Edition. Royal 32mo, 6d. ; 

VJ cloth, gilt, Is. 

"A 

THE DUBLIN TRACTS. Pursuant to a recent reduction, a large 
Sample packet of these tracts may (for gratuitous distribution) be had for 10s. Com- 
plete lists on application. 

mHE STIRLING TRACTS. The entire Series of these Tracts is 

JL now kept in Stock, and complete lists may be had on application. 

BRITISH MESSENGER, Part for 1862. Paper, Is. 6d. ; cloth, 2s. 
Part for 1863, Is. 6d. Cloth, 2s. Parts for 1864 to 1868, paper, Is. 6d. each. 

mHE PICTORIAL MISSIONARY NEWS. 1866—68, 2s. 6d. each ; 

JL gilt, 3s. 6d. Vol. for 1866—67, paper, 5s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d. 

CHRISTIAN WORK; or, News of the Churches. 1868. Royal 8vo, 
\J cloth, 7s. 6d. each." Cloth cases, Is. 6d. 

mHE METHODIST TEMPERANCE MAGAZINE, for 1868. 

J- Edited by Revs. G. Maunder, Chas. Garrett, T. B. Stephenson. Crown 8vo, cl. Is. 6d. 



TON AT LAST ; and Bianchi, the Pedlar. 18mo, 6d. ; gilt, Is. 
GOOD MAN, A VERY GOOD MAN INDEED," &c. By Rev. 



8. W. Partridge & Co.'s 



mHE ROYAL EIGHTS OF THE LORD JESUS. By Rev. Dr. 

-L Leask. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. 

HAPPY YEARS AT HAND ; Outline of the Coming Theocracy. 
By the same Author. Second Thousand. Crown 8vo, cloth, 4s. 

EIGHT LECTURES ON PROPHECY. From Shorthand Notes, 
with Corrections and Additions by the Authors. Fifth Edition, revised, 12mo, Is. ; 
gilt, Is. 6d. 

AUR ENGLISH MONTHS ; a Poem on the Seasons in England. 

VJ By S. W. Partridge. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d ; morocco, 10s. 6d. 

UPWARD AND ONWARD ; a Thought Book for the Threshold of 
Active Life. By the same Author. Seventh Thousand. Crown 8vo, cloth, 4s. ; gilt, 
5s. ; morocco, 8s. 

T EVER LINES FOR SPARE MINUTES. By the same Author. 

J-J Crown 8vo, limp cloth, Is. 

AN IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN. By the same Author. Third 

A Thousand. Demy 8vo, cloth, Is. 

YOICES FROM THE GARDEN ; or the Christian Language of 

V Flowers. By the same Author. Fourth Thousand. Paper, gilt, Is. ; cloth gilt, 2s. 

THE COMING GLORY ; a Series of Brief Treatises on the Coming 
and Kingdom of Christ, as revealed in the Sure Word of Prophecy. Cloth, 6d. 
gilt, Is. 

MY SERMON REMEMBRANCER. (A blank bo ok of upwards of 
100 pp. for recording the heads of sermons, &c.) Royal 8vo, limp cloth, Is. 

AUR MAID SERVANTS. A few Friendly Hints and Counsels. 

\J By A. F. G. Crown 8vo, cloth, Is. 

GOLDEN TREASURES, gleaned from Writings of various Ages, 
illustrating the Gospel of God's Grace. Series I. to IV. 6d. each ; cloth, Is. 

mHE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TEMPERANCE MAGAZINE, 

1 1864 to 1868, 4s. each. 



ROLLS FOR SICK ROOMS, ETC., IN LARGE TYPE. 



The Family Instructor. Thirty-one Leaves of Selected Texts. Is. 6d. 

The Silent Comforter. Thirty Leaves of Selected Texts. 33rd Thousand. 

2s. 

The Silent Comforter. Part II. Hymns. Thirty-one Leaves of Hymns. 2s. 

Green Pastures. Thirty-one Leaves of Selected Texts. 6th Thousand. 2s. 

Green Pastures. Part II. Hymns. Thirty Leaves of Selected Hymns. 2s. 

Sayings of Jesus. Parts I. and II. Is. each. 

Words of Comfort. Twelve Leaves of Selected Texts. 6d. 

Words of Life. Twelve Leaves of Selected Texts. 6d. 



New Works and New Editions. 



BOOKS FOR THE TIMES. 

Crown 8vo, illustrated boards, Is. each. 
THE LAST LOOK. A Tale of the Spanish Inquisition. By W. H. 

Kingston, Esq. 

COUNT ULKICH OF LINDBURGH ; a Tale of the Reformation 

in Germany. By the same. 

THE MARTYR OF BRENTWOOD ; or, Three Hundred Years 

Ago. By the same. 

MARGARET'S VENTURE. By the Author of "Jenny's Geranium." 
THE O'TOOLES OF GLEN IMAAL. By Rev. G. R. Wynne. 
THE CURATE OF WEST NORTON. By the same. 
THE CONVERTS OF KILBANN. An Irish Story. By the same. 
HENRY HILLIARD ; or, The Three College Friends. 
OVERTON'S QUESTION, AND WHAT CAME OF IT. 
CAREY GLYNN ; or, The Child Teacher. By Rev. Dr. Leask. 



ILLUSTRATED BOOKS. 

ANE HUNDRED HIEROGLYPHIC BIBLE READINGS FOR 

U THE YOUNG. Compiled by the Editors of the " Children's Friend." More than 60 
Pictures. Large 4to, cloth, gilt edges, 5s. 

YIGNETTES OF AMERICAN HISTORY. By Mary Howitt. 

V With many Engravings, cloth, 2s. 6d. 

TACK THE CONQUEROR ; or Difficulties Overcome. By the Author 

U of " Dick and his Donkey." With 12 full-page Engravings, cloth, 5s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d. 

nLEVER DOGS AND HORSES, with Anecdotes of other Animals. 

\J By Shirley Hibberd, Esq. With 24 full-page Engravings. Cloth, 5s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d. 

A NIMAL SAGACITY. A Selection of Remarkable Incidents illus- 

II trative of the Sagacity of Animals. In Prose and Verse. Edited by Mrs. C. Hall. 
With 75 Engravings. Cloth, 5s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d. 

OUR FOUR-FOOTED FRIENDS ; or the History of Manor Farm. 
By Mary Howitt. With Fifty Engravings. Cloth, 5s.; gilt, 7s. 6d. 

OUR DUMB COMPANIONS ; or Conversations of a Father and his 
Children about Dogs, Horses, Cats, and Donkeys. By the Rev. Thomas Jackso n,M. A . 
with Illustrations by Landseer, Ansdell, Herring, and Weir. Cloth, 5s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d. 



S. W. Partridge & Co.'s New Works, do. 



AUR CHILDREN'S PETS. By Josephine. With Illustrations by 

\J Harrison Weir, Birket Foster, &c. Small 4to ; cloth, 5s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d. 

TLLUSTRATED TEMPERANCE ANECDOTES; or, Facts and 

JL Figures for the Platform and the People. Compiled by the Editor of the " British 
Workman." With upwards of Fifty Engravings. Cloth, Is. 6d. 

TLLUSTRATED SABBATH FACTS ; or, God's Weekly Gift to the 

A. Weary. Reprinted from the " British Workman." With upwards of Fortv Engravings- 
Cloth, Is. 6d. B 

TLLUSTRATED SONGS AND HYMNS FOR THE LITTLE 

J. ONES. 160 Wood-cuts, from drawings after Sir E. Landseer, Gilbert, Birket Foster 
Anelay, Harrison Weir, and Huard. One vol., cloth, 5s. ; gilt, 7s. 6d. 

MY MOTHER. By Ann Taylor. A Series of Twelve Oil Pictures, 
illustrative of this popular Nursery Poem. Cloth gilt, 5s. 

mEXTS AND FLOWERS, Illuminated. A Series of Pen and Pencil, 

J_ Illustrations of Popular Flowers. Cloth gilt, 5s. ; or in assorted Packets, 2s. 6d. 

THE CHRISTIAN MONITOR ; or Selections from Pious Authors 
With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. ; gilt, 3s. 6d. 

mHE BRITISH WORKMAN, 1855—64. 1000 Illustrations. Cloth, 

X 15s.; gilt, 17s. 6d. Yearly Parts, 1855-68, Is. fid. each; gilt (1858 to 1868), 2s. 6d. each- 
Parti., 1855 59,9s.; gilt, 10s. 6d. Part II., 1680-64, 9s.; gilt, 10s. 6d. Cloih Reading 
Cases for ditto, Is. 6d. 

mHE BAND OF HOPE REVIEW, 1851—60. Eight hundred Cuts, 

X 10s. ; gilt, 12s. The Yearly Parts, 1851— 68, Is. (1859-64, gilt, 2s. each. In one vol. 
1861—65, 5s. ; gilt, 6s.) Cloth Reading Cases for ditto, Is. 

mHE CHILDREN'S FRIEND, 1861—68. Covers printed in colours. 

1 Is. 6d. each ; cloth, 2s. ; gilt, 2s. 6d. 1861 to 18 ~6, complete in 2 vols., 5s. ; gilt, 6s. 
each. Covers for binding Yearly Volumes, 6d. and lOd. 

TNFANT'S MAGAZINE, 1866—68, Is. 6d. each; cloth, 2s; gilt, 2s. 6d. 

FRIENDLY VISITOR, 1867—8. Paper, Is. 6d.; cloth, 2s.; gilt, 
2s. 6d. 

SERVANTS' MAGAZINE, 1867—8. Cloth, Is. 6d. ; gilt, 2s. 



Complete Lists of the Publications of the Dublin Tract Repository, Illustrated 
Present Boohs, the Stirling Tracts, %c, sent, by return,post free, for one stamp. 

(Full Catalogues post-free for one stamp.) 



London : S. W. PARTRIDGE & CO., 9, PATERNOSTER ROW. 





















, , * >\ 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
| Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
' r ',^ Treatment Date: April 2005 




PreservationTechnologles 



A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
, .-,, 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 

i 



~ e ^iA' 



V 









■'= ^W 










. 



: ^ 















^ 



^ / 



•8 I A x \ 






%. 



V V S 



«& ^ 








* _ %5> 



• 0- 



*,\ A 



^ v 



^ 









O '/ 



^ ^ 



•* " j 



1 v 






GO 






<*> H 



2 ,a x 



<\V </»- 



V" 



-^ ^ 







V o>' 




'oo x 

*1 ■* 







,/^ 




O <G 









,Y> ^ 



<- 



,-fc 



-A 






'•^ A^° 

^ V 1 " 



.0o. 



4? v 



* .A 




^> ^ 



- 



. *, -^ 









s xV < 









/ ^ 










, $ 






fBHD 



-^ ^ 





















